Love is not an action. If it were, you could produce a description of that action which you call love, the thing acting, and the exact motions which the thing was carrying out. — Metaphysician Undercover

This activity is described through actions like brotherly love, erotic love, familial love, love of a child, unconditional love etc &c. This action is a decisive judgement and our will to act on this must stem from reason, autonomy and a strong sense of moral duty or moral consciousness, otherwise there would be no basis for this action to be authentic. Emotions are our responses to actions and inactions and a natural, instinctual part of our physiological make-up existing in a schism of positive and negative feelings. Our cognitive make-up contains both conscious, subconscious (experiences that are not articulated linguistically) and unconscious (instinctual/passions) with the latter two acting as a misguided will that diminishes our cognitive reasoning power. It is why people can delude themselves or believe their own lies. When we love, we produce positive feelings of happiness but it is through reason that one enables it to manifest in all areas of life, maintain a longevity of this happiness by decisively choosing and acting on these decisions with reason.

Misery, hatred, anger (certainly with our actions, but sometimes also when we are passive in the experience) are all manifestations of our ignorance, of being unreasonable and no amount of conforming, deluding, deceiving will change that. The intellectual love of God is the highest of these activities because God encompasses all things and it is, quite simply, to become one with the activity itself; the pursuit of God is the pursuit of Good and an immature or selfish love can present itself in people that may love one person or thing but not another. We pursue joy and pleasure - since the pursuit of happiness is in our nature - by better understanding both ourselves (through autonomy we become empowered and this brings us joy) and the external world (though ethics as other' happiness becomes instrumental to our own) that together moral consciousness is what enables us to act on love correctly. When we become empowered within, the authenticity behind the experience of happiness is enhanced by being honest to ourselves.

I don't think that's true... I mean have you never felt hatred for someone you love? There are moments when such feelings appear - anger, hatred, etc. - but they are not lasting, love overcomes them. That's what is meant in the Bible by "Love never fails". — Agustino

No, I have never felt hatred, but certainly anger and indeed sadness but these emotions are derived from actions or inactions; my inaction due to my inability to directly communicate to him and the action of his behaviour towards me led to my feeling frustrated and sad. Love - as moral consciousness - is to know how to give love and though we often express this directly to one person or persons, morality as being the form of good in the platonic sense is really exemplified in our love of God, that is, to love all things. No one reasonable would invite a sociopath over for dinner, it will inevitably produce negative emotions and it is unreasonable to experience these emotions because they are negative. We want happiness.

Thus who we love must be someone we admire - within reason - a person that presents themselves independently and consciously as someone that you would desire to mirror, someone who seeks the same platonic good hence Solomon' "A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones." I have never felt hatred at all because I always believe that all people are capable of becoming self-aware and I would celebrate that even if they were my worst enemies. There is this hope in the suggestions that love never fails both for others and within ourselves, being conscious of the fact that we are all flawed.

I don't see how you can separate love from emotion. Love is an emotion. If you impose such a separation, what you refer to with "love" is not love at all, because love as we experience it, and what we always refer to with the word "love", is an emotion. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, an emotion is a response to an action or inaction and love is an action. We incorrectly assume love itself as an emotion subject to determinative behavioural and physiological responses, but these responses are separate, a passive language. So, for instance, the components that initiate an experience of intense anxiety often derive from a combination of factors unknown to the person - as though the body is physically trying to tell you that something is wrong but you just don't know what - and thus unconscious manifestations that we physically experience. When we raise the reasons for why we feel such anxiety and thus through reason become conscious of the components that initiated the response, we no longer experience anxiety, and the latter exists as a negative, physiological warning to a particular action or inaction. Love, as an action, produces feelings of euphoria and happiness.

It is not to undermine emotions neither is it to enfeeble the concept of love, but to separate the two and therefore to see love as a decision that we need to make - consciously and with reason - rather than being subject to some determinative factor that lacks reason and choice entirely. People who are subject to this determinative approach are emotionally unable to love correctly, which leads to the point of moral consciousness. Since love is an action that requires reason, consciousness is an authenticity of the reasoning behind the decision to act; our conscience - morality - is the will behind our understanding of what is right and good. In order to be authentic - that is to not be self-deceptive - one needs to understand the motives behind their decisions, to be aware or conscious of the conduct in which they apply themselves. So it is only when we are morally conscious do we become capable of the action of loving correctly.

I think erotic love best exemplifies the mistake we make when it comes to the idea that love has a determinative and highly emotional power over our reasoning. We can get swept off our feet by being self-deceptive enough to believe in the poetry of another's affections, but the self-deception itself could quite simply be loneliness and the feelings of passion formed by desperation. We label it "love" but it is not love and thus your so-called demonstration of "A person can love another person, and commit immoral acts, for the sake of the beloved" is no demonstration at all. It is immature and unreasonable action. A rapist that helps put the clothes back on a woman afterwards is not expressing kindness.

A mature love, one contained within reason and approached consciously, is to admire your partner for the person that they are as an independent individual, what you would appreciate to mirror in character and intelligence. This type of love being authentic produces genuine happiness rather than false passions. Without moral consciousness, we will not be able to approach love - in all its forms - correctly.

You are truly a nasty man. I got promoted at the worst time, need to finish the probationary period first so I had to stretch out the date. Urggg, man I can't wait!!! Drive around the Big Island, volcanoes and hiking up Mauna Kea, star gazing high above the clouds, lazying about Waikiki eating all the fruits I can get my hands on while listening to these types of songs (L) (L)

Rub up on my belly like its guava jelly... best lyrics ever!

Picture this bleak lake where a giant sea monster resides. In this lake, the monster, which looks most like a giant octopus resides. I figured out a way to defeat this monster octopus. I can't fight with it because it is too strong. The only way to defeat it is to wait for the water from the lake to evaporate until the sea monster can't thrive on anything anymore. This can take a long time; but, I don't see how else to beat it. You might be laughing at this point; but, I trust what my dreams tell me, and this is something that stuck.

How do you deal with your 'monster'? Have any of you defeated it? — Question

Question, thank you for sharing, I have a deep respect for those that feel strong enough to talk about such personal subjects as one may eventually raise the subconscious horrors hidden deep within them and start to make sense of it, articulate it so that you become the one in control.

And that is the point, this lack of control, subject to your fears that you are 'stuck' and spend your entire life hiding from this monster as you wait for the water to evaporate, this monster that you have never seen, that you seem certain exists and yet has never actually threatened you, taking away the time given to you until you find yourself a whole lifetime later as having never actually lived, old and frail as you crawl out of the cave to witness this monumental moment to find the only dead in the middle of the lake is the dead version of a younger you that never lived.

The only monster is fear. If you take the chance to defeat this monster, a chance to think of proper strategies and possibilities, a chance that may mean death, what exactly is the difference between that type of death to the one of waiting your entire life as you hide fearfully? Such indifference to your own existence is death, perhaps a much more horrendous death than being killed by a monster.

Sometimes when we are faced with adversity, when we are faced with vicious people, people lying and deceiving, slandering and hating and yet all the while boasting and pretending that they are good people, the idea of ever defeating such people is just impossible. You end up with a choice of either becoming a monster yourself or feeling defeated. “Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you."

You will find that we seem to be completely oblivious that there were no choices in the first place. I used to dream of running away from leopards, always fearfully running and hiding, and indeed comparatively in my life that was exactly what I was doing. I soon found the courage to see that these leopards were not leopards at all, but rather just a horde of feral cats. Not easy to simply casually walk past, but certainly not life-threatening that I realised I imagined their power. I wasted years on an imaginary fear. It was not them, but me, and so I defeated the monsters by having the courage to love and care for myself despite what other have done to me. It is choice, the choice to live and take control, to stop running and turn and face the illusion that fear causes us to believe in. When I eliminated the toxic people from my life, set goals for myself, planned ahead and lived by my moral code and principles without relying on anyone, there has been nothing but good things happening that consistently gets better. I have some great close friends, an amazing job, I travel and write and always on adventures.

A small octopus can appear as a frightening, giant monster octopus, to a child. Is this childish fear still within you, controlling you that you feel disillusioned, subject to a power that you cannot grasp within yourself and so you feel defeated. The courage to take control of your life by getting to the root cause of this fear is not easy, it is just as threatening as a giant monster octopus, but doing so you stand a chance of living. This chance is much better than dying after a whole lifetime of fear without never actually having lived, as long as you are safe.

Timeline, it seems as though you want to disagree with the idea(s) in the passage you quoted, but your point of disagreement is not clear to me as yet — John

Sorry John, my conflict was with your association of emotions to the concept of love, the latter of which I was attempting to elucidate as being moral consciousness stemming from an autonomous agent of reason and thus can only be reasonable and good. We tend to assume that we are subject to emotions that play a determinative role in our behaviour and decisions and indeed this is true for those lacking reason, which is why when we become conscious of why we experience an emotion, it no longer has the same power over us. Hatred and indifference are irrational expressions and therefore must be something other than love, even if it is towards someone you supposedly care about, as it lacks the very reason that exemplifies moral consciousness.

This then typifies towards the rational decisions we make in our expressions of love, such as erotic love where our choices prove reason and consciousness. If you feel hatred or indifference to someone you care about, such as a partner, you quite simply don't love them.

I had to delay my Hawaiian holiday for a couple of months because of work. Feeling blue in a non-sad way. :-d

I think it's fair to say that hatred and even indifference are modes of love, or care. We hate or are indifferent to some thing(s) only on account of our love for some other thing(s). With such negative emotions, our love is merely misplaced: we just care about the wrong things due to narrow understandings. — John

The entrenched condition that emotions are an independent mental experience that we are subject to fails to appreciate the quality of reason. There is no real direct relationship between emotions and love but rather our emotions themselves play a determinative role that compels feelings that express our inability and ability to act, a passive language so to speak. So, for instance, when we become aware of why we feel angry, the anger itself dissipates because reason is superior to emotions. When we passively experience emotions, our body, our instinctual drives, our irrational pathology becomes consumed by the power of this activity that will and reason lay dormant.

Love itself is moral consciousness, the latter of which is an autonomous and authentic condition of reason that willingly gives love or goodness to all things (love of God) without bias to particular objects or people, a capacity basically and consciousness is an awareness. Love itself cannot be displaced. If there are emotions like anger or hate or even indifference, it is not love (moral consciousness) but merely the emotional condition I referred to earlier. It is not to say that emotions themselves are irrelevant, but love produces feelings of happiness and sadness (lack thereof) when constrained within reason.

The ideal of erotic love, for instance, between two people involves both sexual and economic unity in an external world, but they must subjectively admire what they seek to mirror. Since love of God, that is, the love of all things or moral consciousness is what we attempt to reach, they would admire one another for their capacity or desire to moral consciousness, for who they are as they are independently or autonomously. The emotions of hatred or indifference to a partner are caused by a lack of admiration and the passive language of emotions are merely expressing the inability to act, so you become subject to irrational behaviour.

Immanence is the reason his "in God" is not literal. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Unlike how we value only what we find meaningful, the lack of any ontological value in the transcendental does not suddenly nullify immanence. Being enabled with a determined movement of conatus as an intuitive essence integral to human nature is not a finite status neither is it proof of the divisibility of God. God is the cause of ALL, including a state which causes another following state, a unified naturalism despite the dissonance, that is, our assumptive finiteness when modes of thought and extension are actually one and the same. There is no closing or cutting.

Spinoza outright says he's not being literal in the passage you quoted. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Where?

...it is very difficult for me to chose any specific political philosophy. — rickyk95

Why do you need to choose? Whilst broadening your understanding of political theories, all you are required to do as a citizen is differentiate with a neutral mindset the policies of various political parties that effectively fit the needs and requirements of your state. The complication rests in the domination of two-party systems and political philosophy will ameliorate your appreciation of what could potentially be a just approach to politics, but the idea that somehow any of them are correct would be false because no such answer has ever been solidified. The fact is, there is no answer in politics as much as there is no utopia.

They're already isolated in Spinoza's distinction between Substance and modes. For modes to literally be in Substance, it would mean Substance was a mere collection of finite states, which morphed into a distinct form ever time a state of the world was destroyed and emerged. — TheWillowOfDarkness

How does that correlate with your statement that God (totality) is expressed by some actual states (those that exist) but not other ones (those which do not exist); notwithstanding the irregularities in the interpretation of his work, it is very clear that he stated God is not contingent but that all things are determined by the necessity of God’ existence, the cause of divine Nature effects all other things. There are an infinite number of finite modes and it appears counterintuitive to purport modes as separate to Substance as it resists this external causation and violates this relation. In fact, it makes no sense for you to say: "If Spinoza was being literal in saying "in God," he would be reducing Substance to nothing more than a finite collection of states which existed: a violation of the infinite and unchanging nature of Substance.”

It is an infinite collection of states - inherence or conceived in another - vis-a-vis Substance or in God (that conceived through itself), thus a fundamental unity that ties this theory together. It is unfair to claim Spinoza was or was not being literal in his attempt to explain this causal order and though we cannot conceive of Nature, it does not suddenly imply that we are not a part of it. Substance is not dependent on either existing or non-existing states, but the quality of modes to “literally be in Substance” that is, to be predicated of it implies that God is the cause of all modes.

I can appreciate the controversy of the subject of immanent causation in Spinoza’ modal theory, but to say he did not “literally” mean such and such is just bad manners.

“God is the immanent, not the transitive, cause of all things. Everything that is, is in God, and must be conceived through God, and so God is the cause of all things, which are in him.”

Can’t get any clearer than that buddy.

I don't think the Stoics believed there's nothing wrong with the world, or that the world is perfect, as that would require them to take the position that we can't improve ourselves. — Ciceronianus the White

Generally speaking, the overall assumption that happiness somehow involves less in judging evils than it does in immersing oneself in the appreciation of Beauty, whereby one can reach a higher state by being non-judgemental to me is fallacious and fails in the 'We'. We can always improve ourselves, that should be a principle that never escapes us, but attaining happiness is not about ignorance of reality but rather righteousness. That if one authentically chooses to become one with Nature, the suffering of others is as much a wound to them as a deep cut on the arm would be and it is nonsensical to assume that ignoring the wound would suddenly make it go away rather than fester into something worse, even fatal. When one transcends to this consciousness of 'we', justice becomes a responsibility, whereby happiness is formed within moral consciousness. Morality becomes Beauty. The cycle between ourselves and the external world becomes the same, which is consistent improvement.

How is 'finite being' relational to the quality of the enduring 'we'? The children that I love and support will go on loving and supporting their children; the happiness of others is as much a part of me as my happiness may be to them. There is no finite. Correct conduct naturally evolves when one learns how to give love and where the happiness of others is instrumental to our own happiness, reaching a balance between fighting injustice whilst appreciating nature, love, consciousness. One falls in love with justice.

There is a deceptive ego, one hidden behind many systems of thought that purport reaching a higher plane of existence, of reaching a state of happiness can be achieved through what is merely the justification of ignorance, an image of kindness and morality but with no consciousness; people are becoming vegetarian or vegan but are only doing so because of the image not because they actually have a conscience for instance, thus a lack of consciousness in their behavioural decision-making. Fighting injustice, the products of your tireless endeavours and love for others is the expression of this authenticity. The fruits of ones labour, the good works that one does.

For me, there's nothing diminishing about being "a child of the Earth and the starry heavens." And while the Stoics and other ancient philosophers may have felt that humans were distinctive, and separate, as being endowed with reason, I don't think they suffered from the fear of death and of being alone as it seems many do now and have done for quite some time, but managed nonetheless to possess wisdom and formulate high standards of morality which I think remain unrivaled. — Ciceronianus the White

I was so fearless as a child that my plans to runaway from home always ended up 100 meters away at the local park, eating all the food I prepared to sustain the energy required for the so-called long hike toward somewhere else as I spent hours just staring up at the stars and milky way. I would end up walking home weary eyed early in the morning when the silence became frightfully deafening and I began to sense reality was not as comfortable as my desires.

The moment we feel this angst we are automated in our response to alleviate the negative sensation and these responses can be highly irrational to a point where self-deception inappropriately orchestrates the decision-making process. The more people you have supporting your delusions - if one can be self-deceptive, one can be deceptive to others - the more likely it will solidify as reality and the angst falsely dissipates because you assume these deceptions are truth.

Rousseau claimed that our state of nature is good, but it is civilisation that corrupts this innocence, that society is artificial and unnatural and indeed, when you observe the contradictions in society today such as the capitalist delusions marketing concepts of beauty and popularity that reinforce the illusion that pleasure can be derived in becoming the very image that they create, it is not difficult to see the point Rousseau was trying to make. People blindly believe that if they follow an image and look a certain way, than they will be happy even if they give or do absolutely nothing; they find satisfaction and fulfilment when others approve of them, others caught in the exact same delusion. In that, people start to lose their dignity and no amount of hedonism can heal the sickness. As Fromm says: "It is naively assumed that the fact that the majority of people share certain ideas and feelings proves the validity of these ideas and feelings. Nothing could be further from the truth. Consensual validation as such has no bearing on reason or mental health.”

So it is not necessarily the physical fear of death but rather a way of overcoming narcissism by recognising our finitude of existence that in turn liberates the process towards authenticity. Fromm speaks of this angst as being the fear of our separateness, of our very autonomy and that we end up forming false symbiotic attachments to avoid confronting the detachment necessary to form and apply a genuine and mature love. Love is moral consciousness, it is happiness, it is the very core of our existence and yet if everyone wants love but no one gives it, what exactly happens? It would be wholly naive to believe that there is nothing wrong with this world and if you cared for Nature, the 'we', you would be wholly righteous, disgusted at injustice and at all things morally deplorable. This is where I have some trouble with the Stoics.

It may be that some of us must go through what you describe in order to accept that we're a part of nature, but I hope it's not necessary that we do so, as I think this can occur to us simply by acknowledging what is the case. That should be easier now that it's been well established that there are billions of galaxies in the universe. The ancients can be forgiven for thinking we're the most important part of the universe, but I don't see how that can reasonably be maintained--or believed--now. — Ciceronianus the White

There may be exceptions, but the danger lies in the authenticity behind this acknowledgement that render those exceptions comparatively irrelevant. There are a plethora of examples that exemplify the simplicity of self-deception and the capacity to alter facts to suit a personal agenda and solidify delusions of grandeur. Even with the accessibility of knowledge, our understanding of the vastness of the universe, there continues the same cyclic repetition century after century. “Ignorance is the root and stem of all evil."

I think the fear of death and feeling of being alone is something that developed fairly late in our history and has its basis at least in part in the glorification of the self which found its most extreme expression in Romanticism, subsequent "isms" like Existentialism and Nihilism being something akin to symptoms of the resulting "hangover." — Ciceronianus the White

Aside from the scale, the technology and variations in cultural subtleties, I see no differences in time whether now or historically. We appear to be consistently repeating ourselves in different ways and no amount of knowledge changes the condition of human stupidity.

I think we're aware of this and conduct ourselves in "ordinary day to day life" accordingly. Somehow, though, we've come to believe that there is some "us" distinct from the rest of the world, distinct even from our bodies some cases. — Ciceronianus the White

We conduct ourselves in such a manner to nurture our fear that soon enough we become jaded in the monotony, dependent on its repetition to safeguard our feelings of security and take for granted the extraordinary opportunities available to us. The fact is that we are extraordinary and sometimes a whole lifetime can pass with nothing, no greatness or depth of feelings, no passionate love neither any risks, and for so many that horrible state of mind is adequate. Who cares who you marry, as long as the culture you belong with accepts it. Who cares about challenging yourself. It that even being alive? To transcend to experience this 'we' you speak of requires authenticity, an honesty to ourselves; we can tell lies to person after person in order to gain their approval or garner support that enables an adequate foundation to justify our fears, but therein lies the paradox. To authentically experience Nature, one must become autonomous first before consciously choosing to be a part of Nature. It is the way of consciousness itself, hence my original remarks on free-will. We need to acknowledge our distinction, our separateness, the fear of death and of being alone first before genuinely forming a bond with Nature where the experience of 'I' becomes absorbed into the 'we'.

Because we have the capacity to reason (which the ancient Stoics thought to be characteristic of the divine aspect of the world) what we do can be the result of intelligent interaction. — Ciceronianus the White

Reason is a tool and its divine characteristic is its capacity to precipitate moral consciousness; intelligent interaction enables a mirroring that elicits epistemic progress that our jaded ordinary fail to experience. When we set aside belief-systems - thus form reason without the illusions - and focus on God, Good, Nature, this interaction wholly becomes about the development of moral consciousness and as God is the omnipresent, the universe, the infinite, we thus become a part of this 'we' that the unnatural, radical evil no longer evokes its mindless influence. Reason thus becomes superior to our instinctual nature.

“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. I do not seek or conjecture either of them as if they were veiled obscurities or extravagances beyond the horizon of my vision; I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence.” Kant.

This is grounded in the categorical imperative, wille and wilkur.

I'm not certain what you mean by "radical evil" but would guess is it involves conduct resulting from the extreme or excessive desire or urge to harm or exercise power over other people, possess certain things, self-indulgence, etc. — Ciceronianus the White

You speak of the golden mean and certainly a balance between such extremes is a necessity to influence control over the passions, but radical evil is a corrupted moral disposition that ignores the duty to empower our moral constitution. A human condition that neglects in preference to a mindlessness that subordinates moral agency into the powers of our instinctual drives. To a degree, Stoicism has the same strict regulatory behaviour necessary to defeat this subjective influence, but again, clarity is somewhat wayward in that it must be uncompromising as the categorical imperative is to our obligation and duty to morality and is against this psychic determinism that the Stoics trust. This is why choice - free-will - and authenticity - autonomy - is absolute if one is to take genuine responsibility on the commitment to love.

Pan's Labyrinth and Ghost in a Shell (the original anime, not the hollywood rubbish).

Right - perfectly true. But, it's not so simple, because each of us are also instantiations of cultural and psychic archetypes, so are born with innate abilities and predispositions. I think, for that matter, a great deal of Plato can be interpreted, or re-interpreted, as his intuitive insights into the archetypical patterns within the mind. — Wayfarer

Indeed, even cognitive capacity refines our mental representations hence why each of us appreciate various interpretations of the world outside of ourselves and in a cyclic manner are able to objectively reflect or mirror ourselves back that epistemically elevates us to conscious beings. It is why I feel that belief-systems inhibit the capacity for an individual to refine this process. I think intuition is really the subjective key to autonomy that as we distinguish the properties of experience or representations, we demonstrate a type of trust in ourselves and that is the beginning of learning to rationalise independently. Only then can we really apply ourselves correctly, that is with moral consciousness (love) as we become aware of the inconsistencies and reduce the overall conflict with our instinctual passions. Whilst I am not in accordance with Buddhism or even Platonism, when saying I think I am attempting to elucidate this separation not as a display of the superiority of my own beliefs, but out of respect for the freedom we each have to believe in what we want, and I respect yours.

Actually that is much nearer to what I probably meant to say. It is that recognition, not of something you didn't know previously, but the meaning of something you knew already. Which, I think, is very near the meaning of Plato's 'anamnesis', 'un-forgetting' — Wayfarer

To avoid any misconstrual to the suggestion of memories of former or otherworldly cognitive states, what I was attempting to convey was that each of us have existential experiences and cognitive abilities that interact in ways that sometimes we are unable to articulate or express linguistically or semantically, particularly when we are young. We form emotional or subconscious patterns of experience and habitual behavioural responses that language articulates to a conscious state, which is why such 'aha' moments can be so relieving. So, sometimes we may have an intuitive feeling, emotions attempting to convey suggestions through anxiety or depression etc, these tend to disappear when one becomes capable of realising why it is there in the first place. This is why they say that philosophy is a language.

I'm not sure I understand your point. But I think we've been ill-served by the belief we're apart from Nature rather than a part of it. — Ciceronianus the White

When one thinks of radical evil as being demonstrative of an innate condition, how does this reflect the interconnectedness of Nature? Whilst I appreciate your view particularly that humanity conceitedly have an unhealthy and even lunatic self-regard, self-righteousness (we're made in God's image) and I could not have said it better myself, this is not a dualism but rather a natural consequence of consciousness and free-will and thus Kant' categorical imperative is a moral alternative that sheds a more clear light than the stoics on overcoming radical evil. We stand in judgement of our nature to become one with Nature.

If a God of such a universe exists, it seems unreasonable to think God is particularly or peculiarly interested in us. If God is not of the universe, we can know nothing of God because we can know only the universe, or rather our small part of it. So if there be a God, God is immanent in the universe. I think Spinoza derived a great deal from the Stoics, though it seems he may not have thought so. In any case, I think they thought of God and what is good along the same lines. — Ciceronianus the White

There appears to be a necessity epistemically for people to conform to a system or belief, whether it is a particular religion, a culture, a philosophy, even other people like parents or girlfriends, and to categorise oneself as a 'stoic' or a 'catholic' enables a determined boundary that prevents feelings of separateness and angst that autonomy and free-will often engender. The last sentence you say reflects a Kantian moral necessity and you are precisely right, that by having 'faith' in God - what is Good or Perfect - though God is immanent, neither existing nor non-existent, we reflect the cyclic regularity between ourselves and the material world and become one with Nature through moral consciousness. Thus by epistemically conforming to God, we seek subjectively to improve ourselves independent of conformity to the imperfect or finite, or what is worldly. By becoming this rational, autonomous agent, we become aware of the reasonable illusions, human conceit and the narcissistic self-regard that conflicts with the ebb and flow of Nature.

I am unsure of whether Spinoza derived much from the Stoics but there are certainly a plethora of comparable themes that are worthy of discussion; even so, the categorical imperative functions as a synthesis between the passions and our will that he believes the Stoics failed to adequately command, as you yourself say the ancient Stoics accepted a kind of determinism. Whilst I am nonetheless open for you to ameliorate an alternative to this view, without transcending to a rational, autonomous being governing our own behaviour that mimics the ideal of Nature or God, we will continue to be responsive to choices that conform to people or concepts or things that lacks the free-will or consciousness necessary to become moral or to overcome radical evil.

But I'm better off waiting for you to explain what you're point is. I do ramble on, once started. — Ciceronianus the White

Ramble away; there is nothing more pleasurable for me than reading highly articulate ramblings about such subjects. The post is merely touching the surface as I am trying to explain a rather intense subject without the intensity.

It seems family ties are the most emotionally driven. — Andrew4Handel

As children and part of our developmental stage in life, we require the emotional protection and care of our family and environmentally they are pivotal to the development of our emotions and emotional reactions, so to a degree they become a part of you, or at least there seems to be this acceptance that they understand you. When we reach adulthood, we still hold onto this connection and why our responses tend to remain emotionally driven, but we are no longer children. The point is that as adults, it is rational to view your family as adults and separate to you, that no one is allowed to treat you in anyway that will hurt you and it is merely a matter of acknowledging this.

A safety behaviour is to take the route of least hassle. I suppose it is a form of apathy. I am not sure what pragmatism is when applied to a scenario. — Andrew4Handel

The least hassle approach, however, does not really get to the root cause of the problem, not just the emotional responses within you, but such apathy almost inadvertently permits what has hurt you in the first place. To be rational is not to deny your emotions neither to allow it to overtake you, but to understand and apply it within reason and this process seems to work closely with how we choose to live and apply ourselves in our own lives. It is impossible to attain genuine happiness if you are in an unhappy relationship but the least hassle approach would be to try and make it work. It is only prolonging the inevitable, stretching out years of unhappiness because you prefer the safest, least troublesome route.

When you have the right people in your personal space, genuine friends and apply yourself purposefully in your profession, you are emotional but in a positive way. Having the wrong people in your personal space, false friends and no purpose, you are emotional but in a negative way.

Should someone cut of contact with a family member who as hurt them because of the emotional hurt or should they be pragmatic and keep ties? — Andrew4Handel

How is approaching the situation of being hurt by a family member pragmatic if the practical outcome is to get hurt? Relative to the circumstances, it is emotional to take a pragmatic approach and keep ties since it appears unreasonable to believe that as they are family then somehow they are allowed to behave in an unwarranted manner comparable to others unrelated to you; it is also irrational to assume that rational reciprocity is unnecessary and only you require the elevated capacity of dealing with whatever it is that is hurting you.

It's certainly more tedious to intellectually engage with the emotional, but it's definitely possible; I've done it many times (sure, it's not always worthwhile or successful). The answer to persuading a screamer is either to undermine their emotion or wield a more persuasive argument. — VagabondSpectre

I agree with you but it depends on your own disposition and will as a person, as well as the utility or intention of the outcome. For instance (and I am using a personal example only to elicit the point I am attempting to convey), I once cared for someone who was rather vicious but I understood why and I knew how to help him because I had been there myself, but such was his profoundly immature ego that my ability to penetrate and enable his conscience almost cost me more than just my time. He made me so sad. When you love a friend as much as I did him, tedious is hardly the word to describe what one can end up feeling when engaging with the emotionally decrepit.

You may undermine the emotion of a religious zealot, for instance, but what about undermining the emotion of a religious zealot who is sociopathic, vengeful, cruel? Is it worth the possible outcome if they decide to unleash this cruelty directly to you? When you expose the flaws in someone - particularly religious - who subjectively consider themselves morally superior, you become an enemy to them, a threat because the foundation of their identity is shaken. The anxiety this causes makes them work very hard to undermine you back, by whatever means necessary, since if they are able to beat you then it proves to them that you must be wrong and therefore so must your judgements of them.

You are right, undermine the emotion and wield a persuasive argument, but only when you are capable of emotionally investing in it yourself. As injustice can stir a raging fire within me, I would much rather dedicate my time theoretically to broader at -macro rather than -micro.

So the ring of invisibility the insignificance that Cain felt when god favored only Abel? That's what caused him to feel jealousy. — VagabondSpectre

I am not sure what you mean, are you doubting the semblance with the Ring of Gyges? Is the problem of Able what caused Cain to feel jealousy, or was the pre-existing character of Cain merely exposed by the jealousy? Temptation can expose the true character of a person despite the appearances of virtue. It is to expose the schism within humanity vis-a-vis our immoral nature, not the actual offering itself. There is a plethora of these types of parables applicable throughout many areas of thought be it philosophical or theological; to remain in line with the OP, discussions of the purpose and motive behind actions in parables like the poor widow's offering, or the rich fool.

Blood is the currency of forgiveness. Which brings me back to my original point: why does god need blood to forgive in the first place? Is it some source of power? Magic? Is god Gargamel? — VagabondSpectre

This is just insipid at best. I guess I understand what you imply when your criticism is directed to the views made by the so-called mainstream religious that I am not and will remain unacquainted with, but you are confusing God with people, that it is people that need blood for redemption, the source of the power being the effect it has on ones conscience. The forgiveness follows the redemption, since when one enables their conscience to express love correctly and become morally conscious, they become what God wants them to be and thus they are forgiven. People, though, are the ones that need the blood, which should make you ponder what the heck is wrong with people.

But, with respect to the question of conversion - conversion experiences are basically 'aha' moments. They're those moments when suddenly - it's always suddenly - you see or realise something that you had never known or appreciated previously. — Wayfarer

Thank you for sharing, you do write your personal experiences with such clarity that, regarding the above mentioned, for me it is not a realisation of something that I had never known or appreciated, but rather a realisation of something that I did know, something subconscious that I may have always felt but failed to articulate and so the 'aha' moment is almost like making sense of these feelings. I had an aha moment one time when I was 15 on a long train ride to the country and I had an old copy of The Last Days of Socrates, where ironically my journey in life probably started to begin.

Everyone has differences in views and on forums there will inevitably be contested opinions, flaming, and posts being deleted. There will be friends that defend each other and trolls, the reasonable and the irrational. Without stirring the pot any further by eliciting my opinion on this subject, I am sorry that the OP was so disgruntled about his posts being deleted and pointing fingers is a sign of immaturity that is so pointless that ill refrain from it. It is the tapestry of life and yes, the last several days has left a bitterness in my mouth, but next week it will be different and the week after that. It is the nature of forums, so it is best to have a sense of humour about it.

An interesting and legitimate caution. But although a Stoic partakes in Nature and the creative intelligence which permeates it, and so can be said to have an interest in it, a Stoic doesn't judge Nature in the sense referred to in this legal maxim. So, I think I'm okay. — Ciceronianus the White

I appreciate the mutually interconnected and interdependent ontology vis-a-vis the virtue of existence and being a part of nature, but in the case of radical evil along with consciousness and free-will, I find myself drawn to the categorical imperative. How you live your life, your frame of mind and the decisions that you make reflect your overall clarity to become a part of this nature, but does it not also enable you to judge it?

I'm on my phone, will love to write more on this subject but alas, off to work. Until this evening.

Now, Stoic. — Ciceronianus the White

nemo judex in sua causa (Y)

Well Baden was certainly entertained. As far as I know... :B — Baden

There were moments that were popcorn-worthy :D

Maybe he's secretly been using a second account and forgot he wasn't using that one right now. ;) — Michael

The freudian slip of illeism. Entertaining, nonetheless :)

Gulag for anyone who disagrees. — StreetlightX

Viva la revolución!

They've tried to ban Agustino — Agustino

Why are you talking about yourself in third-person?

Is it worth experiencing pleasure if it means you will also experience pain, or is it better to minimise pain first and foremost, and then enjoy pleasure as it comes? — Kenshin

It could also be the other way around, that maximising pleasure would require experiencing pain first; an athlete would endure physical pain in order to win a medal, for instance. It is both about a calculable attempt to ascertain the likely probabilities of the decisions that you make before taking the risk and this risk usually involves an intuitive force, a type of faith in this decision. The result could maximise your pleasure for much longer, even if it involves loss or pain as part of that decision.

Maximising pleasurable experiences as they come is limited in that it lacks the adequate reasoning necessary to ascertain the probability of future events and the risks involved in order to ensure the longevity of happiness, the latter being a pleasurable experience. Hedonism requires a continuum of fleeting pleasurable experiences that is impossible and thus self-deception becomes necessary to avoid consciousness of the lack thereof, basically delusions are what make people 'happy'. The outcome of these probabilities dependent on the actions of the present and the decisions that are made and sometimes it would mean the involvement of unpleasurable experiences.

I'm referring to how certain finite states are self-defined rather than others, a way of talking about how God (totality) is expressed by some actual states (those that exist) but not other ones (those which do not exist). — TheWillowOfDarkness

This appears to have reduced it to nothing more than a mere metaphysical relation, since even if it is expressed by those that do not exist, there must even in non-existence be assigned a cause. And why rather than others? I am unsure if you have confused prop. 3, but exactly how have you isolated totality (substance) from whatever is must be in a substance and the cause of all that exists? Even 'ideas' are in this same order.

We're trying to do different things then I think: you aim to rise above the zealous and derive superior (rational in this case) moral value from scriptures, and I aim to descend into the intellectual realm of the harmfully zealous to confront them on their own terms. — VagabondSpectre

This is a lot more tricky as people can quite easily be deceptive; the same tactics you may see with religious people can comparably be viewed with far-right ideologists, who are indirectly and inadvertently saying fairly nasty things with a smile on their face. I am glad you have pointed out that I value rational/reason as 'superior' (and not me) but so are you, only you seem to find the energy and the time to try and reason with the unreasonable by communicating in the same zealous manner in order to talk in their language. I tried such tactics previously, whether it is for the religiously zealous to someone with sharply contrasting beliefs to my own, trying to indirectly convey my point to them in a way that they may understand, but I have since come to view it to be pointless. A screamer is a screamer. A person who wants to deceive themselves and others will; look at holocaust deniers. There is no point to it, basically, and if you choose the intellectual realm, set aside the emotions and communicate with those that will actually hear you.

No matter what you say, if people refuse to listen or read what you are actually writing or saying because of their personal views and vendettas, they will not hear or see a word that you write.

Religion can also unintentionally imbue shitty moral standards into their mysticism which then poses a challenge to rational moral agents who would have people learn to wipe. — VagabondSpectre

Absolutely, but it doesn't lie merely in the realm of monotheistic religions, new ageism is as much a stain to rational, moral standards as anything else. Upon reflection, the reality of the issues is the authenticity, which reflects back to my comments about the necessity for autonomy in our appreciation of moral standards.

"Love" itself is the expression of our conscience, or what I refer to as moral consciousness. These expressions can come out in numerous ways, whether it is erotic, familial etc. Moral consciousness requires work and is initiated by the prompting of the conscience and empathy, the feeling of wanting to give or care for others and the pain you feel when you see injustice or unhappiness, and the primary source of its capacity to function adequately is reason, but knowledge without autonomy and authenticity is superficial at best. As love also involves our emotions or feelings, without an adequate understanding of ourselves, which rational thought enables, our understanding of love itself could quite easily be skewed and we will begin to do or behave incorrectly.

So yes, I do agree that there is a dark side to Christian love, but this is no different to the "wolf hiding in sheep's clothing". Religion doesn't pose a challenge to rational moral agents because they would not adhere to it; it only poses a challenge since we as humans epistemically have the need to follow and conform but attach ourselves to the wrong things.

I find many Christian tenets to be morally repulsive, disgusting, and even worthy of hate, but I've already become somewhat dispassionate in regards to how I feel about it. — VagabondSpectre

I find some to be morally repugnant; I went to the Vatican several years ago and thought that I was in hell. And of course, there are many bad people who hide themselves behind the opportunity that institutions provide, confessing their sins or putting on this moral show before going off and abusing or hurting people because they are repugnant enough to believe that if someone or a person can be fooled by them than so can God (hence the authenticity), but my understanding of the scriptures is the reverse. If you think of Jesus speaking to the Christian community today, what he says will probably make sense to you.

You're trying to strain historicity from this, but why? Why not consult historical research? That said, historical/theistic genealogy isn't the take-away which concerns me, which should be clear at this point — VagabondSpectre

I published about the origins of the syncretistic religions of the near east and it is necessary to consult both historical research but also compare and contrast anthropological observations, but whatever the case is, there will always be a gap or a hole in our understanding that will ultimately rely on possibilities.

Aside from the fact that history is a turn-on for me in many ways ( >:) ) you need to appreciate the subtle differences between contemporary and ancient attitudes, practices, symbols in order to make better sense of the text without falling into the trap of being lured into the mystical.

Morally, metaphorically, literally, abstractly, historically, not at all: all are options for interpretation. My main target is the mainstream moral one, but if I can tag the other bases while I'm at it (even if only to reinforce my moral criticism), I'll do it. — VagabondSpectre

Ok. For me, the utility of this is pointless, you are better off using your time elsewhere. But hey, each to themselves.

I totally disagree. The more reliably you treat people as they want to be treated the more reliably they reciprocate. Such reliability is actually one of the virtues which causes us to place intrinsic value in the lives of those who display it. Surrounding one's self with reliable and moral people is both greedy and rational. There is indeed reciprocation. Yes some places have immoral customs, but reciprocation exists even in such places within whatever arbitrary bounds their customs mandate (usually customs which are religiously inspired and perpetuated I might note...). — VagabondSpectre

I totally agree, but it depends. If you treat a Christian who values those morals that you find repugnant reliably but inform them of your views, how would this reciprocation work? Assisting the disadvantaged, supporting people who need your help and rely on you requires an objective distance; what you think and feel is irrelevant and even unwarranted except for who you bring home with you.

When I read the bible (around age 15) I couldn't understand why god wasn't pleased by Cain's sacrifice of fruits and vegetables but was very pleased with Abel's offering of dead animals; did Cain not work equally hard for his bounty? The answer can only be that to sacrifice a living thing is inherently a greater sacrifice (therefore worthy of more appreciation). — VagabondSpectre

That is not the way that I see it; I feel the story ameliorates the importance of the subjectivity of the individual, that the intentions within matter more than the practice of offerings or giving. "For you are so careful to clean the outside of the cup and the dish, but inside you are filthy - full of greed and self-indulgence!" Very similar to the Ring of Gyges parable. The result between the brothers proves this.

Human sacrifice is therefore a greater sacrifice if we value human life more than animal life. The life of Jesus himself then becomes the greatest sacrifice of all. Christians spend a lot of time reflecting on the sacrifice that Jesus made so that we could be forgiven and it causes us to feel thankful to him for doing so, but they spend very little time asking themselves why they need god to forgive them in the first place, or why god needs a sacrifice in order to do actual forgiving. — VagabondSpectre

(Y)

Yeah clearly! Your understanding, as illustrated by this and many other instances in this thread is clearly superior to us mere mortals — Agustino

Actually, you are attempting to do nothing but beat me because you are a sexist and judging from your sociopathic PMs that imply a need for me to do what you tell me in order for me to 'have a chance' at becoming virtuous alongside your comments elsewhere that women who are submissive and passive are beautiful, the ONLY thing you have been doing is exemplifying this.

You can play this game with everyone else. This is the final time I am going to ask you to do this, stop harrassing me.

Jesus was capable enough (just enough?) to move your conscience. That's rich. How about God. Is God capable enough? — Bitter Crank

Why is that rich? What else is supposed to happen that is 'expected' of me? And it depends on what you interpret as God. My choices are.

Since I'm making a point about general Christian belief I have no option but to generalize to do so. You keep telling me to calm down and suggest I have been raising my voice, but why? — VagabondSpectre

What I am trying to say is that it is best to avoid that otherwise you look just as bad as the religious morons screaming insults before spouting the philosophy of love and virtue. You should see the PM's that I got :-# It is up to us to stand above the screamers who are really only defending their religious beliefs tooth and nail.

Holy fuck... :D — VagabondSpectre

I probably shouldn't have laughed.

It seems to me that 'boys' typically use ad hominem attacks to reinforce their non-existent arguments. You and I would never resort to such intellectual drudgery though, right? — VagabondSpectre

Comparatively, and upon reflection, you were angry and you missed my points on numerous occasions where suggestions that I never made were said to have been made, but you were never really angry at me, so I will have to agree here and apologise in a thankful way for your continuation of the conversation. But again, for instance the following:

...you're overly defensive because of your emotional love for Christianity? — VagabondSpectre

I do not want to say this again. I am not religious. I have no affiliation to Christianity and have never been to a church service. I appreciate the testimony of Jesus, but I see him as a man, a person who made sense to me and someone I respect for being capable enough to move my conscience. I have a high respect for some of the other prophets and saints in the bible too as their stories are beautiful, Jonah for instance, Joseph and the story between Solomon and Sheba. I read it historically but also analyse what the moral of the story is too and that is what I take from it.

Every person has the capacity to be genuinely moral people but history and religion has turned normal, moral nuances into mystical mysteries in order to solidify the highly imaginative illusions that the masses seems to rely on, but these are myths that take no literal place with me. People are not 'special' because they are trying to be good, in fact, religion intentionally creates moral hierarchies; being a virgin does not make you a saint just as much as meditating for a thousand days won't enable enlightenment, and these types of coded rules turn ordinary people away from believing they are capable of being moral because the suggestion is impossible to reach. That's bullshit.

So, you're defending biblical parables because you follow nothing but god (which is a placeholder term for "reaching epistemically toward what is perfect"?). How do you know epistemic perfection exists and that this is what you're reaching for? Why call it god?

Why do you feel the need to defend biblical parables and their mainstream interpretations if you're removed from mainstream religion? — VagabondSpectre

Erich Fromm speaks of love perfectly whereby to love is an activity that requires study and practice, it is not simply a given that you feel. This pursuit can take place in various ways such as familial love, erotic love, brotherly love and the love of God and each of these activities involves this practice. So, religions offer the assistance in the practice of the love of God, but the troubling aspect to this is that love as a subjective experience is an autonomous experience to the individual and humans have reason, consciousness and an awareness of ourselves and others. Thus, there is this displacement of our autonomous position that causes angst, an anxiety of the reality that we are separate from others and alone. This compels us to conform, to prevent ourselves from taking the responsibility for our own existence and as such our practice of love is not authentic but rather it becomes seeking and working very hard to attain the love of other people whether it is church leaders or our friends or family, but never really learning to give love as mature, independent adults that no longer seek it from others.

So, if we eliminate the religious influence and the specificity it offers the individual who has conformed so as to avoid the angst, it enables us to take a broader approach. So, it no longer becomes an attempt to seek the approval from other people, but it becomes concepts like righteousness, virtue, honesty etc despite people, culture, norms. God without religion is both specific and non-specific, and thus when you have the faith without imagining the illusions that religions offer about God, it is to love all things that epistemically enables us to seek moral consciousness in that very broader concept. There is no possibility of proving the existence or the non-existence of God, but nevertheless the idea is that since God is perfect good, our attempt to draw ourselves closer to God is our attempt to draw ourselves closer to perfect good and thus serves epistemically as a necessity to improve our moral well-being.

Reaching epistemic perfection is impossible because that would be like saying reaching God. It is the process towards reaching this that is possible and remains infinite because we are all both good and evil as that is the natural product of consciousness and the finitude of our existence. The constant attempt to perfect our moral side, our good side is the very practice of love. Biblical parables offer the opportunity for a person to think about moral concepts independently, but if one loves their religious institution or some other object or thing, they have conformed to agree to the interpretations made on their behalf and never learn to think and practice love autonomously.

So I stand that mainstream religion only enables conformity and I do not stand for mainstream interpretations of biblical parables, that conformity makes it impossible for one to practice autonomously. My point is that you need to make it yourself as they have a utility in your moral development if analysed independently.

Whoever wrote about Hagar certainly didn't know that one day Islam would form and then millennia later someone would find them troublesome. — VagabondSpectre

That is a good point historically but Arabs were, so perhaps I will concede to the latter and the relationship between these "brothers" (Abraham is the father of monotheism) of different "mothers" (laboured a community) has always been rocky and distant.

You're free to take whatever you want from it, and I won't condemn it unless I find it morally repugnant somehow — VagabondSpectre

(Y)

But, you can't call it the "Isaac parable" if you are interpreting it literally. Otherwise, it is no longer a parable.

You think having unconditional love for other people gets you persecuted or outcast from society? I don't. It makes people want to reciprocate; that's the golden rule. — VagabondSpectre

It depends on where you are from; if I were a Yezidi girl, I would have been stoned to death by now. Giving unconditional love within within the restraints of social customs is the only way it is approved, but stand outside of that and you will be outcast and despised. It is easy to put on a 'show' of kindness, saying the right words, selecting the right approach by adhering to the right things that you know other people would appreciate, generally just putting on a false facade of goodness when the endeavour is solely to receive the love from others and not actually giving love, in the end there is never any actual reciprocation and thus they never actually produce anything.

Foucault suggests that to bridge the gap of understanding between the reader and the author, you need to move closer to the language and intentions of the author rather rather than to force the text to conform to your own. You're creating your own meaning entirely. that's fine and all, but I don't know what's useful about the binding of Issac as a tale of innocence and geography. — VagabondSpectre

It is exactly right but I personally have no use for the story apart from something like having faith in the promise. But with regards to geography and people, this is a historical approach of the time; when you read ancient texts, you cannot compare it with today but you need to understand how they viewed the world back then in order to facilitate a more accurate interpretation.

Was that when you asked me if I'm still beating my wife? :D >:O — Agustino

I never said that. I wasn't even aware you were married, I thought you were a teenager.

I also fail to understand why you say I think only about 'me me me' when I am the one being quoted? If the purpose of my post is about autonomy in interpreting the scriptures, being independent and an individual is the point, so it is unfair that you imply objectivism and Ayn Rand, which is merely ad hom attacking me.

I guess it is a good thing that you have kept me up all night, considering now I can avoid all of this Sunday by sleeping... :-d

Peace out.

And now, I need to pay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar otherwise the Gestapo will act on their veiled threat. Filling in the right paperwork is often sufficient to escape their wrath (though not without causing annoyance). A pity that the legalists have always dealt with the letter of the law, but not also with its spirit. — Agustino

Are you ok? Are you still angry at the fact that I pointed out your abusive remarks towards women that you claimed to have almond brains, clearly exposed by your Ayn Rand reference that exemplifies you to be nothing but a very angry person?

You should have just remained quite, your first ad hominem post towards me may have actually worked, but now you just look insane. :-|

Is it a future event or does it already exist? I think this is interesting given that we have the intrinsic quality to consciously experience something like procreation and given we are aware of the potential, we are able create it. To say a future event could assume the potential, so a child that is born is assumed to develop the cognitive capacity of adequate intellectual functioning, but what if it has autism? There is no potential, despite what we imagine.

Turn the other cheek, even if they punch you in the face... :D

But then as I hold the ball, I tell you I'm never going to drop it. What is the potential? — Mongrel

I understand the elementary explanation of potential energy, I meant how you relate that with subjective potential of an individual. I would say that when you hold the ball it is potential energy since there is no velocity and therefore contains no kinetic energy either, even if you move your hand around because of the conservation (that is under the assumption of how you hold the golf ball). If you said a basketball on your finger, however, that would be a different story.

I'm confused about potential = kinetic × resistance, what do you mean? Do you mean the sum of the changes that measure the amount of lost kinetic energy that has been recovered during this interaction?

I can see the analogy of potential viz. a person whereby two different paths are influenced by external forces though they have the same initial and final points, displacement from that final point remains dependent on the coordinate of these forces, which brings to mind "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." The product of our current state is thus influenced by our physical environment more than our capacity.