I’m new to this forum but by the way words are so innocently mentioned i thought i would throw my own innocence into the mix. When all is set aside emotion, thoughts,even spirit, all complex reactions to whatever perception or illusion you hold dear to your reality.What is the point of it all?In the end we are not merely animals with a higher brain function always confused with too much emotion and not enough thought or vice versa…With philosophy a sense of curiosity is among you to create a pattern for you to make sense of some dream that has long been forgotten,instead we try proving a contradiction that has already been argued. My question: Is unity the ultimate goal of humanity?is the goal to immerse oneself in self while trying to survive ,while at the same time allowing all trust and all of who you are to be taken by the essence of infinity and eternity to become one?Giving away your survival instinct of course is not possible, but I am curious to those who have gone beyond the bullshit of flawed emotions, thoughts, desires and dreams to become what we are all meant to be, what is your opinion? Of course it would be insane to let all of your trust go but then your just getting your individuality get in the way, it is never about taking away individuality but becoming more of yourself to finally let go and become one.Is this not true courage, to find the ability to unite even when the world is chaos for then are we not merely a product of chaos but have found peace from chaos.Order is not more appealing but the thought of being a slave to peace or some would like to call themselves, nothing, even nothing needs a place.Is it not more of what we all originally wanted?For as we grow older we learn to let our animal instincts take over, responsibility is our dictator and we are again nothing more than surviving.From the beginning we wanted not only to survive but to be accepted, fear controlled lives and a sense of urgency let us live in fear, even this post is to be accepted somewhere. So in the end would you agree or disagree?
I don’t know, sometimes I like to think this is why I dick around all day long
Other times I think its because I have no hope for humanity or the future of the world as we know it
Hello. Humanity does not have a goal. Humanity is not a collective consciousness. Humanity is a grouping of all humans, of which those members, or, us, have our own goals that we determine for ourselves. There is no point to our lives aside from what we individually choose to make of it. Unless of course there is a creator to all this and that creator has a purpose for us, then that would be it. Good luck on talking to the creator about that, I suspect you’d end up talking to yourself as the character of your own make believe creator. Of course you can also indulge in the religion of your choosing of which there ate plenty of make believe gods to choose FTP
, each who supply dome purpose that a bunch of assholes made up themselves to begin with, probably because they ignorantly thought they were going to serve the greater good.
The most accurate answer to “What is the point of it all?” that I can muster is, “To occupy the time between now and when you die.” Everything past that is baseless postulation.
That seems to be dream analysis, which would be more appropriately labeled psychological.
I’m not entirely sure there is a single collective goal. In fact, I doubt there is one unanimous goal to be found. Epicurus’s freedom from pain is countered by sadomasochists, world peace by war-mongers, unity by counterculture, conservatives by rebels, etc. “Bullshit makes the flowers grow & that’s beautiful.” -Principia Discordia
There is a balance that must be maintained. Find your spot and sit on it. Or don’t.
This is a contradiction.You defined humanity then redefined humanity with the opposing view.For we are basically animals and whatever animal instinct we inherit are passed down.
Another contradiction.Because the point of your life is to make choices or are you saying to make choices that lead to a reality that make your choices pointless?Then there is no point in your choices all together. A greater good will never be achieved firstly because good is not a definite symbol.You must obviously believe in good and evil if you mention good.Therefore I presume you are not addressing the question, but yourself.What are you choosing to live, yourself?Of course this is where the theory loses its meaning merely focusing on oneself is somewhat redundant especially if they do not believe in anything.Why believe in your choices?
see what I mean
Unfortunately I do. I guess becoming more than yourself is underrated, people are just satisfied with choices, I guess its in the laziness to strive to conquer yourself, the final hurdle. Simplicity is something so much more than being an animal.Choices, an animal makes. Humans they break time and walk as if though their every choice does not resonate in the cosmos.
Depends on whether or not you think of ‘humanity’ as a generalized abstract or as an aggregate of individuals. At an individual level, loneliness can be a part of the goal of unity–through marriage, identification with a group, etc. On the other hand, if ‘humanity’ is a generalized abstract, it would seem to have only one goal–life.
Welcome to ILP, now.
So deterministic why are you in a rush? What can you occupy with that time?Why even occupy the time between? Why do we have to opportunity to occupy?Simple minded is not bad just don’t presume simplicity is a part of purpose. The sense of purpose began this journey of philosophy.Why turn away so abruptly with out even a respectable glance to its beginning?
Point???
Thanks for the welcome. Marriage, identification with a group all these are forms that a society has created is to entertain unity and acceptance. A way if you may to satisfy our boredom with the simple act of being one.These rituals have been engraved into our DNA for the sake of our animal nature. Elegance, the presentation(A Medium) of the individual to another individual is not the same as accepting or uniting with another human being. The act of sacrifice of self, is when unity is accomplished. To trust in another unknown. What is the goal of unity beyond that of marriage, for this is also a ritual? As for the generalized abstract, a good observation, but what is your definition of life what makes life complete? why seek to maintain the goal of life?Why be a part of life if you are alone in life, in the sense that all we are doing is just living to survive life.Why not to be part of life, true life?
A collective consciousness is not a collection of consciousness. It is not a contradiction. There is no singular consciousness that consists of all the conscious thoughts of all of humanity. Do you understand now? There is no point to our lives aside from what we individually choose to make of it", is not a contradiction. I am saying we make choose what our point of life is. We choose our purpose. Our purpose is not to choose (unless some God who created us said so), our choice is our functionality. Our functionality is a mere result of our physio-biological state. There is a point in our choices if we choose a point behind our actions.
A greater good can simply be seen as a good that most people would agree is good. I wouldn’t say I believe in good and evil as opposed to judging myself what is good and evil, just as everyone else does.
This is a long one, so please bear with me. There is a lot to address.
Actually, stating that deeper meanings of life are presumptuous is somewhat antithetical to deterministic. It’s closer to metaphysical Nihilism than to determinism, and is intended as a Pyrrhonian skepticism; a desire not to attempt to determine things we do not have the ability to determine in a definitive manner until we die, and then only if we do indeed maintain some manner of consciousness after we snuff it.
I have far from presumed “simple minded is bad.” Is the body of what you have just offered for my sentiments not presumptuous itself? How, precisely, do you know that:
a) I have “turn[ed] away so abruptly with out even a respectable glance to [philosophy’s] beginning?”
and
b) that simple minded philosophy is the only philosophy there is (which seems to be your implication)?
My point is that you labeled it philosophy whereas it is psychology. I was under the impression the meaning in the sentence was self-evident.
I hardly see how you can become “more than yourself” by conscious endeavor if you are in fact only yourself. You could get “lucky” and develop some kind of multiple personality disorder, becoming, in a manner of speaking, more than “yourself.” If you believe in a Jungian Collective Unconscious, you can’t not be more than yourself anymore than a cell of swarm creature (such as a single drone bee) can fail to operate as such. Which is, of course, not a conscious decision.
“The Final Hurdle?” Has god leaned his benevolent head down to decree a list and progression of “the hurdles of life” to us? This thought-line demands a conscious higher power as a priori. Should we clarify that, in this discussion, we are taking your supposition/implication of a conscious higher power and/or higher purpose as a given and not challenge whether or not that is in fact a provable point? Did Kant not show that to prove one way or the other is next to impossible?
I fail to see where laziness enters the picture, as simplicity is not exactly antithetical to laziness. For example,
Which is about as lazy as it gets, as one could claim any success of the people as their own doing without actually doing anything. But that claim is against the Dao/Tao, which eventually explains that you are expected to sit in your house, enclose yourself entirely in your pineal gland, and dream your life away.
As far as simplified-life philosophy goes, Lao Tzu/Tze is, in my opinion, one of the most successful-- In fact, I enjoy his writings (well, supposed writings, as it is debatable whether he is the individual responsible or not) quite a bit-- but as we can see, the “simple-minded” philosophy is not free from laziness. So is your “simple-minded” life of dreaming of what should or shouldn’t be, (which, especially if there is some God on high, is not your choice to make) engaging in a quasi-Freudian ego castration somehow less lazy than, for instance, Lady Gaga’s (because I think she is absolute crap, so as not to have a preferential bias to the side I’m attempting to defend) touring schedule? No, it is not.
Furthermore, humans are in fact animals. Period. So any choice you make is inherently one “an animal makes.” Also, going back to simplicity, the image of a cow grazing a field is about as simple as it gets. It stands as a contradiction that “Man” must be higher than simply another “animal” (a term I feel you need to reevaluate) but that a higher “Man” is one who engages in simplistic philosophy while, somehow, being higher still than the simplicity of the aforementioned bovine chewing cud.
A few brief points of thought on marriage: Marriage is a union, true enough. It is not a union outside of the family and perhaps some friends who are consequently brought together. Marriage does not exist without divorce. With current divorce rates in the United States, I would entertain the possibility that the institution of marriage contributes equally to union and schism. I sure hope it is not entered as a means of combating ennui. Marriage has nothing to do with propagation, as pregnancy can be achieved without wedlock. The only concept of that nature “engraved into our DNA” is to reproduce. Can anyone really argue that marriage is perfect? That husbands and wives don’t cheat, lie and take advantage of? There are even groups who swap wives and husbands with each other for sexual gratification. In fact, if we’re focusing on unity, perhaps we should look at The Communist Manifesto:
In the end, marriage is a sort of mutual ownership and associated set of laws to dissuade partners from being unfaithful to each other, with the added benefit of tax incentives and fancy rings.
For the last few questions, if you live, you experience life, by definition. How can you define a true life in comparison to a false one? Are we getting Salinger-esque with a concept of “phoneys” or are we referring to a sufferer of dementia or schizophrenia? Even with the latter two, your only window to experiencing “reality” or “life” is through the cerebral interpretation of your sensory. I know I can define my waking life independently of my dream consciousness because I know I lack the sense of smell, and sometimes taste, in my dreams, while retaining all other functions. I know that if sight, hearing and touch (with taste as well every once in a while) can be experienced without external stimuli, my associated senses in waking do not necessarily require stimulus and therefor, from that stance, are the hallucinations of a demented or schizophrenic person any less true?
The Borg philosophy?
I think immersion in self and survival etc are not the goal but tools that can help us to that goal.
The great philosopher/artist in the sky - so to say [metaphor], has no specific goal in mind such that one may or may not determine ones goal independently.
=D>
I don’t buy borg philosophy [though I’m a fan of the culture], it takes the distinctiveness it requires and so destroys itself. Technology does not supplant our humanness its just a tool to further it [and derived of it].
Unless I am mistaken, the Borg Philosophy was presented as a culmination of the absolute unification of individuals into a collective entity, mirroring Now’s arguments for a united “greater purpose,” being “more than yourself.” Watch the clip, read Now’s post, and see if they don’t have a definite correlation. I apologize if I have misrepresented Pandora’s point.
Unfortunately since I am new I apologize for not specifically stating any of my definitions of what I mean.
The definition of Unity in this context is the capacity of your mind and your emotions and for those who believe in spirit also.But fuck it all of yall are right, The best philosophy is that philosophy that is lived.Unfortunately we think to much.
the best philosophy for living is an optimal combination of gut instinct and rationality
The goal of all sentient life is satisfaction - I mean, as a starting point, let’s be as universal about it as possible. From there, we can begin to assess how different philosophies, actions, thoughts, etc. lead towards or away from suffering. Satisfaction is neither random nor inevitable. So there must be some order to the process. Further, since it’s the ego that demands the right to satisfaction, maybe it’s worth questioning the ego’s justifications.