How so?

What I think both kinds of racism have in common is this: people engage in it to make themselves feel better about who they are. True? — frank

Somewhat. Racism is based on the idea that I am what I'm told I am. I'm told "my name is x" "I am x" "I come from x family" "I am x race" "I come from x country" "I am x species" "I am x gender"

Rather, none of these are actually what anyone is. These are just things we've obtained from the external world. Similar to how the empiricists claimed everyone is a blank slate, and the only thing that makes someone what they are is the impressions upon them from external stimuli. However, I don't claim that.

Rather than identifying with what is fictional, one ought to identify with what is genuine. The true Self undergirding the impressions of sense data and the logical functions (or lack thereof) or the various pieces of food that you've accumulated in your mass of meat that's called the body.

The real question is, who are you? Who are you, really? Actually? Peel away all of those phony layers, what is at the core? There's only two answers to this:

• Something
• Nothing

This is the perennial debate in Indian philosophy. The Buddh-ist tradition has said there is nothing undergirding one's identity or being. It's just emptiness, sunyata. However, the Vedic (or Hindu) tradition has said that there is a thing undergirding it, what we called the Atman, the Self. The Buddh-ist tradition says the opposite, Anatman, there is no Self.

This is the very heart of the issue. Instead of identifying with the phony things that we've accumulated from our experience in the world, we should ask that fundamental question.

Max Stirner, as well, disliked this "essentialism" of identifying one's self with the external things that define you, religion, family, ethnicity, culture, history, race, etc. etc. etc. Rather than defining for yourself what you are. He's a sort of proto-existentialist. I agree with him on this, though disagree with his anti-essentialism/nominalism.

Not yet, but I will look it up. Thanks — Gregory

It's decisive proof against the idea that brain creates consciousness. Since the folks involved had no brain hemispheres, or were missing massive volume of their brain hemisphere, yet were fully conscious and had intelligence. Many were even students at university.

Well, neoliberalism is just recasting liberal economics, hence "neoliberalism." That liberal economics was created during the British Empiricist period within the nascent British Empire.

Adam Smith, was a friend of David Hume, he created it, and David Ricardo basically created the version that exists today.

And where do the assumptions of British Empiricism come from, well, medieval Scholasticism: nominalism. It all goes back to nominalism.

When you believe in nominalism, there's no inherent values or natures to things, so there is no inherent value to things in the world. They're just commodities you sell on a market. And it's value and price is subjective. The value of your land is subjective, of your life, of your drinking water, of your food, of your children and of your country. This is nominalist economics. I don't call it neoliberalism, it's nominalism.

That's right. America was originally one node within the larger Anglosphere, the British Empire. So actually, yes. Then of course, the British Empire collapsed. But the apparatus of that empire has not. The same families of elites who lived then own everything today. Then of course, the American Empire stepped up. And it's currently in it's state of collapse as well.

The real power in the world are the Anglo-American elites, well at least since the past few hundred years. Not throughout the whole history of time, obviously.

I've been reading about neoliberalism. I don't think there are CEOs or oligarchs who try to instigate racial conflict. They don't have to. There's generational inertia where a child comes into a community that's waiting to pass on anger and fear. In that sense, today's racism is old. — frank

There are. The whole of WWII was their doing. And the Cold War. Google "Wall Street Trilogy" it goes in depth on this. All three sides in WWII and the Cold War were ran by Wall Street.

But you're not supposed to point this out. That the real Nazis and real Communists are actually right in our own backyard. AND they won the war. The Nazis won the war. But again, you're not supposed to point this out.

Those same people own the media that tells people what to believe and do in this country, and fund the university system which teaches people the "official narrative" But, I'm sure they're not related at all and we should just trust what they say.

Yes. You nailed it. There is not a true meaning in our lives. It is something we created. The abstract complex of meaningful life depends on the person itself. — javi2541997

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there is true meaning in life. It's just hard to pin down. It's not all made up from our tail end.

But somehow it looks like we are forced to discover it. — javi2541997

Yes. As Sartre said, we're condemned to be free. We don't have any choice but to at least try to discover it.

This is the main reason why probably there are a lot of sad persons depending the country. They (I refer oligarchs) established a weird way of living: income, being attractive to others and family. — javi2541997

I usually call them the Oligarchs too, the Technocrats, the elites, the bankers, there's a lot of words you can use. But the people who have run the society for the last few hundred years.

Excuse me but... If I don't live this establishment am I worst? It is impossible to discover because "meaningful" life is abstract and has to be encouraged by educational system. — javi2541997

No, I don't think so. I think realizing that the world that has been established "for you" is a fraud, is a scam, an illusion. That's the first step.

They've been doing this for hundreds of years. Profit and power is their objective, and if they can ruin people's lives to get it, they will.

Are you familiar with the study that John Lorber conducted?

Philosophers invented science and philosophy. Isaac Newton was a philosopher, he didn't call himself a scientist. Neither did Galileo. Plenty of others. Copernicus. Kepler.

'Trust me guys, if you just do [some difficult thing] then you'll see how right I am!' It's like asking a stranger to read your novel. In theory, you are possibly right, and maybe you are best friends with god. But there's something iffy about gesturing to prerequisites on a forum. Lots of people are eager to share their religion. It's a thing. And most people have come to some decision about it by now. — norm

That's not what I said. What my position is, is very clear: whether we come to know the meaning/purpose/nature etc. of existence or not, we shouldn't give up on that question. In other words, the whole point of existence is that question. If we never come to knowledge of the answer, that doesn't mean we give up. You seem to believe that "philosophers and philosophy can't answer that question, so that question is unsolvable, so I'm done with philosophy and good riddance." Well, I don't accept that.

I might not have the answer, nobody might very well have the answer. It's possible that getting that answer is impossible. But that doesn't mean we throw in the towel, and accept nihilism. First, that is a logical non-sequitur to say "because we cannot know x, therefore there is no x." That's a fallacy. Second, that's not the point of philosophy. The point of philosophy is to know the Good, know the Truth, know what is Real. Socrates went to his death asking those questions, and all should model his life in that regard. He never said, "I don't know the answer yet, so I guess I'll just stop asking the questions." That's laziness. That's a cop-out. That's what I'd call philosophical suicide.

'Nihilist' is another one of those words. I don't have high hopes for you understanding me, but it's the shallowness of all these cartoon words that I'm objecting to. Your attitude seems to be: if you don't see Philosophy asI see philosophy, you're nihilist, obscurantist, atheist, materialist, cultural-marxism guy. — norm

Yeah, I know you're a Derridean and a Wittgensteinian you're just going to talk about the imprecision of words and how knowledge is impossible. And I frankly don't respect that view. You can have that view, you're free to do it, but I don't respect it. I consider that sophistry, pseudo-philosophy, philodoxy, nihilism anything except true philosophy.

I'm an irreligious guy who likes Bernie Sanders, wants health care for all, a high minimum wage, blah blah blah. I think metaphysics is hopeless but harmless, that labels without additional context are useless. I don't think that philosophy is proving things, so I won't try to prove that philosophy is not about proving things. As my vision/attitude of/toward language changed, so did the mission. Facts on the rough ground demanded an adjustment of strategy.Blah blah. Words for birds of a feather, mostly wasted, which is fine. — norm

I definitely understand your position, I believed it myself once. Richard Rorty, probably the greatest Postmodern philosopher of recent times, held the same position. I just don't, and I think that's just giving up.

I think you've given up on serious questions and serious issues, and now you're stuck with pragmatic, practical things. I think that's giving up, surrender. A cop-out. You might find that fine to believe and accept, I do not. Apart from it being self-refuting at a fundamental level, it's also a cop-out.

It is nihilism, no doubt. All of Modernity and Postmodernity rests on nihilism. It's the foundation of Modernity and Postmodernity, it's why everyone is cowardly over this COVID BS and why the wealthiest Oligarchs on this planet are looking for immortality serums, and transhumanist singularities and other nonsense.

Nihilism is exactly the problem. And it's definitely not an easy problem to solve, I'm not making light of it. There either is meaning/purpose etc. or there is not, and if there is, it's certainly not easy to find. Having said that, we also shouldn't just give up and say "no there isn't any meaning" because the question is too hard.

The Premodern philosophers, by which I mean, primarily the Chinese, Indian, Greco-Roman and medieval Jewish, Christian and Muslim, didn't agree on what precisely that meaning was that undergirded the world. But they agreed that there must in fact be such a thing.

I would say the same. The way to figure out, determine or discover what that meaning is is challenging, perhaps impossible, but we should live our lives as if it existed and try earnestly to find it instead of giving up and throwing in the towel.

Sort of an Absurdist or Existentialist approach to it, but not really since I reject existence precedes essence.

I'd say you should doubt everything, like what Descartes said. Once we do that, I think we come up with only a few basic things that remain. The problem of Agrippa, of justification, of truth, whether there is such a thing, of metaphysics, are metaphysical questions worth talking about?

Finally, the ultimate question, is there some inherent meaning, value, purpose etc. to life, or is there not?

Then we find out the answers, or at least try to the best of our ability.

I was never a Roman Catholic, or a Thomist, so I never took to him and never will. I think Thomism is just crypto-atheism. Which is not necessarily bad, but Thomism is supposedly trying to create a theological system. If I'm reading Nietzsche or Marx, or Stirner that's fine, because I expect atheism from atheists, not from people who believe in God.

I know. Thomism and Hegelianism are extremely dry and boring. Our philosophy is very natural, ancient societies were filled with God-consciousness. This society is the exception, not the rule. Hegel is a very good philosopher, I think German Idealists among the rest of Modernist philosophers are probably the best. But ultimately the sublime philosophy is the philosophy contained in the Vedic Scriptures. Particularly, the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita.

Do you know who Manly P. Hall is? He did a lecture on the relationship between Platonism, Hermeticism and Gnosticism.

Since this world "partakes" of the realm of Forms, the realm of Forms is "more real" than this world. It's not that this world is false per se, but that the realm of Forms is more real.

Thomism is pure evil in my mind. Because it says God is Pure Act. This views leads straight to atheism. In order to protect God's simplicity, you either need to cut God off from the world (Classical theism) or you have to make the world equal with God (Pantheism). It is just pure atheism. I reject Thomism utterly.

No, this is a common notion in Hermetic philosophy. Macrocosm-microcosm. It's simply extrapolating the small to the large.

I didn't actually read it in the dialogue, I heard it in a lecture on the dialogue. So I sadly cannot remember. I could reread all of the dialogues to find it for you, but I think I'll pass on that. I hope you understand.

No, it's not quite sun worship. We do have a god of the sun, Surya. But we have a "spiritual sun" which analogical to the sun.

In the microcosm, the sun gives all things the energy that sustains it.

In the macrocosm, the Absolute (Sriman Narayana) gives all things the energy to sustain them.

As above, so below.

"But you disregard science and prefer (bhakti) to pray to god or gods. That to me seems very irrational"

I don't disregard science. I accept what science says, I just don't think science is the only standard of epistemology.

The God as depicted in Timaeus? — Valentinus

Yes.

The Phaedo refers to the idea of the body being a vehicle of the soul that does not die. Where in the writings does that make the "soul" a home in the "Forms"? Plotinus reasons in that way but I don't know where Plato does. — Valentinus

It's in his dialogue somewhere. He does say that. The soul originated in the realm of the Forms and returns there.

This follows the allegory of the Sun that I mentioned, since all emanate from God, then we all have the Divine Spark. As such, we all eventually return to Godhead whence we came.

Vedic philosophy and religion is the same ultimately as Greek. The culture is different, the understanding is the same. Zeus may have been their name for God, as we have many names as well for God. The referent is the same, name might be different. In our faith alone, God has nearly 1,500 names. Since he is infinite, it is truly impossible to name him with one concrete descriptor.

Yes, it's a very common allegory I bring up.

Our understanding of God is similar to the allegory of the Sun. The same way the sun emanates the energy of life on this planet, so to does God, the spiritual sun, emanates energy to all the Omniverse.

Those are neo-Scholastics correct?

I absolutely despise medieval Christian, Jewish and Islamic philosophy. I think it's utter sophistry and nonsense. Trying to reconcile the irrational faith based position of an undereducated sub-literate Abrahamic religion with the rational, empirico-logical tradition of the pagan philosophers. That was their whole project, and it ultimately failed. Since nominalism was birthed from medieval Scholasticism.

Emergentism is just dishonest Panpsychism, and Panpsychism is just dishonest Idealism. So I'm just being honest.

We are only connected to the rest of the world in how the world effects our body (at the quantum level even).

No. We are connected as individuals to the sum total of all reality, because we are the microcosm come from the macrocosm.

In the West there are those who believe the soul and body are separate, and those who believe they are one.

Western philosophy is absolute nonsense, I know because I have a degree in it. Western philosophers can't even agree on basic questions like "are there philosophical problems?" Not totally a waste of time, but logic cannot grasp the fullness of truth, neither can sense perception. Even Western philosophers admit that, though some of them still try to hold onto some degree of "truth" or "reality" many of them understand truth is something pragmatic, instrumental, deflationist, and reality has no true interpretation outside of our cultural, linguistic and historical context.

So, they admit that I'm right. Truth can only be grasped supra-empirically and supra-logically. In the Vedic philosophy, this is done through yogic meditation, vedanta and bhakti.

Sadly. I think there is. I think the ruling classes like to pit people against each other for their own schemes, and there are so many people easily driven by emotion and hatred conditioned by the modes of material nature to behave in such a way.

There is no "neo" Platonism, that's something Western scholars who don't know anything about anything at all whatsoever, because they have infinite baggage from being Dark Age savages for eons, made up. Plotinus' doctrine is indistinguishable from Plato's.

If you read the Timaios, Plato discusses the world soul, nous and the One.

Having said that, I'm not a doctrinaire Plotinian, and this is exactly where I disagree with him. God is pure consciousness. And all consciousness is a person. Therefore, God is a personal being, not some sort of pure act ("Actus Purus") or something like that. But your point is taken.

What you mean is that the illusion breaks down, not the body? Right? That sounds psychotic, but a lot of people do believe that, pure Platonists being among them — Gregory

The body breaks down. This is the natural cycle: Creation, preservation, deterioration, destruction.

The body breaks down and dies. It's a machine, like any other machine.

In quasi-ideal Forms that do not subsist in a mind — Gregory

They subsist in the mind of the One, via the Nous according to Plotinus.

In material objects being either bad, non-existent, or hardly existing at all (like a shadow) — Gregory

Yes. Shadows on the cave wall. Not the true reality, not unreal either, but not the true reality.

The rest is correct.

God is all-knowing and all-pervading. He dwells in every single quantum particle, so he is aware of pain, but he's infinitely beyond it as well. Because he's self-sufficient, self-satisfying, self-enjoying. Unlike organic things, which rely on contingent things to exist, God is necessary being. Relying on none.

Animals are also spirit souls, not matter. Animals are just in their body-avatars just as we are. The body is like a suit the soul casts away after it's use. It's like a machine. The body breaks down, the soul moves onto a different machine.

Sadly, and it's most sad because there's no difference between black, white etc. Or even between a fly or a roach or a plant or a dog or a person. We're all the same. But we will kill each other over made up distinctions.

Yes, Berkeley is a great philosopher. But I take my philosophy from the Vedic Scriptures primarily, the most important of which are the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads.

I'm not saying it's in *your* imagination. It's in God's Mind. The Infinite All-Pervading Unoriginate Consciousness. It's partially in your mind, because your mind forms certain qualia of reality, sure, but it's in God's Mind.

I'm a Panentheist, not a Pantheist. But, that's fair. If you aren't interested, you're not interested. Apologetics has nothing to do with it, we're talking about honest philosophy, which you're obviously not interested in.

humans aren't animals now? Yeah. Okay.

Ok, this was so painful to see... I never seen it until to day. With your images it is proven that clearly church used the image of Jesus just for spread their power around the globe. When such an image is so distorted for centuries it makes so difficult to believe in. It is impossible having all the ethnics at the same time, does not matter the perfect human theory that Church is used to use in this debates. — javi2541997

There's a Japanese/Chinese (East Asian, don't know which particularly) Jesus, a Syrian Jesus, an Egyptian Jesus, yes an Ethiopian one.

Indeed, there are some Christian denominations and historians who, because they know of this curiosity, change his name from "Jesus of Nazareth" to "Jesus of Galilee". — Gus Lamarch

Interesting. I didn't know that. Thanks for sharing.

If you assert something to be the case you should have the evidence to hand to back up that assertion. Otherwise, don't assert it, enquire instead. It's of no interest what you just happen to reckon. Why would anyone want to know what you think there might be studies of, we're not compiling your autobiography. — Isaac

You have a very serious ego problem. You can't tolerate anyone else's opinion for even a second. That's pretty sad.