it's not weird that the primordial juice we come from is best formed in a body that likes to enjoy and sometimes says things about itself it truly doesn't feel

needs to be put under the microscope. — TheMadFool

The best aid to meditation for me has been cigarettes. There is no evidence it causes cancer. There could easily be a gene that makes certain people smoke which also causes the cancer. Tobacco has been used as medicine since ancient times. It's a myth that it smells too. What passes for "science" these days is not much of anything. If you have a theory that they think is 60 percent likely to be true, then toss it out for an 80 percent, the 80 percent really isn't 80 percent because the 60 percent wasn't true. I think scientists misuse statistics in attempts to prove their own theories without taking into account a holistic understanding of all scientific studies in human history

Whether the program is numerically infinite or qualitatively infinite, I don't see why its necessary that it must be broken, or breakable

Buddhism doctors us out of the idea that we have to die to find "God" in the ultimate way

Well Schopenhauer was from the West and he proposed that Spinoza was correct all along, although the former thought a way to eternal existence is possible. Schopenhauer's psychology lesson started with explaining that matter itself is incorpereal

Law is only seen as law when it is law to you

Heidegger seems to have thought of death as "dispersion", which might be wrong. He seemed to take to heart Nietzsche's phrase "joy in high tension"

The mind is problematic, despite what Descartes or Aquinas thought. Thought itself can be the problem

How are you coming to the conclusion that a program can always be broken? You are putting a necessity on this as a rule

How could the meek possibly inherit the Earth? Maybe by the power of someone else's violence visited upon them. — Nils Loc

All Christians want to dominate something in some way. They are not Eastern at all, or have not learned its ways

Why would a Spinozian necessity make it "fall apart"?

Pope Francis, in the new Catechism's teaching that capital punishment is evil, has done what he has to do to curb the violence of Christians. Christians are always whinning that they are persecuted, but they are persecuted because they are trolls

The "Edict of Thessalonike" (380 AD by the roman emperor Theodosius I) said

"It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our Clemency and Moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven we shall decide to inflict."

The very Bible itself says "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the intelligence of the intelligent I will bring to nought." 1 Corinthians 1:19. Such violence desired violence in response, not violence of a physical or emotional nature, but intellectual violence of the kind Nietzsche spoke when he said philosophy was hatred

Christians destroyed books of their enemies and killed people while in power. See There Is No Crime for Those Who Have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire (Transformation of the Classical Heritage)Michael Gaddis

Nothing wrong with the devil if it's the right devil

What I'm saying is that you have to realize what you want to live for. To live for the feverish will cause more suffering than enjoyment but the moments of passion are fully real as they last. To be a Buddhist is not as spectacular but there is less suffering. You have to know what you live for

One may think of a physical theory and it might not gel right, it might feel off. But it might be the truth of what is our there for the reason that our minds might not be naturally fit for full scientific exploration

Do we really get older each day?

Was Nietzsche a materialist?

I think if we have faith in logic, math, and deduction, we have to trust nature. Gods could fool us, but so can aliens, and multiverses. It takes much wisdom, to my eyes, to be able to distinguish possibilities with proper probability. Statistics has never been my thing. In psychology class I was classified as a dreamer

To see the world as dark and evil is an aesthetic, and I think Buddhism's true one. Schopenhauer emphasized our unity with the evil and thought there hardly an escape. There are no easy answers to all this. Maybe best to slide though it like a ghost

How do we define philosophy and religion? — TheMadFool

There is theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge on one side, and theoretical ethics and practical ethics on the other. (I like to avoid the words objective and subjective because that gets into the murky waters of Platonism) I learn about knowledge and practical ethics through reading. People have to ask themselves: am I looking for a way of a life or a set of beliefs?

Schopenhauer's philosophy arguably entertained only one irrational belief, namely the belief in Will — Janus

Is not will, even if not free, obviously existent? Buddhism is about making it (the will/ego) subtle, as in being Quietist

Note: Catholics use doctrines, not arguments, as mantras.

"Temporality temporalizes itself primordially out of the future" Heidegger

As I've said above, there are theories of time in physics that may have use of this theory. We may ordinarily experience time running backwards for example

I really have no idea what this means. — Xtrix

What do you think Heidegger means when he says we do things by virtue of the future?

Aristotle said that motion causes time. Heidegger rejects this and places a more esoteric view in its place. Is it possible future Time causes present motion?

Heidegger blamed Aristotle, which is why he discards him. Heidegger is more than focusing on power tools

Correspondence between mind and object is practical knowledge. Theorectical knowledge has no object. Like 1+1=2

Is it possible motion does not go to time, but Time comes from the future to motion. Modern physics has many theories. Philosophy was the start

Are there line segments with no parts between the points and ones with parts?

From the perspective of the Absolute, objects are not unity (1) divided by infinity, but infinity ÷ 1, which would = 0 because it can be done. The attempt would be "spurious" as Hegel says. Therefore Shunyata

Does not a segment have an infinity of tiny points and is also finite? Have you heard of Banach-Tarski's paradox?

Finiteness and infinity would seem to negate each other when put "in the same regard" in unison. But that is what an object geometrically is

Everything you experience is becoming, so it is related to time. Nothing and being can do nothing without each other, but they can act in unison with nothing playing prime matter and being form. The result is a cosmos which is in total flux. Aristotle's logic laws don't apply anymore. His static world was an illusion

For the reader: sublation means ascending by the type of contradiction that produces a staircase. MU is thinking of contradictions where two opposites meet in a funny infinitesimal and stare at each other pointlessly

Becoming is the sublations of nothing and being. There is no dingy dirt called prime matter hanging around. The movement leads thru Universals to the Absolute. The lesser produces the greater. Do you think this impossible? Of course, you're a Thomist. But this can happen because of Time. Check out the last section of Heidegger's Being and Time to see him rap up succinctly Hegel's view of time

I am going to have to take a break from this thread for a week or more. If there is a true paradox here, I hope to find it when my head feels cooler. You guys did a great job. Thanks for all the help on this

I didn't feel threatened, but now that's it's pointed out, it is a weird first post

Thanks again. Society is obsessed with photos and mirrors. There is no proof these have any relationship to reality if they differ even slightly from what we see with our eyeballs in the flesh. We are primarily what others are see when they look at us

I'm not sure what you mean but you seem nice. I always try my hardest

If you want to find a contradiction, you'll find it. A real contradiction is Zeno's paradox. If you desire to create contradictions instead of discovering them, that is possible