The Nature of Enlightenment

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Enlightenment is the process of unburdening one’s thinking upon another, wiser, or more knowledgeable, individual. There is nothing magical or superstitious about it. One man is intelligent. Another man is unintelligent. Therefore, naturally, a society relegates specialized task. One man thinks; the other … obeys orders as (religious) commandments. This is the manner in which a master controls his slave, and also the manner in which priests control their disciples.

The burden, is one of knowledge and wisdom, of thinking.

The weak-minded ones (Christians/Buddhists/Muslims/Atheists) all seek to release their burden, of thinking, onto another man/individual. For the religious, this social phenomenon produces a moral authority, an authority automatically wrought with absolution. The moral absolutist, hence, is one who unburdens himself with thinking, with personal responsibility, with personal accountability. His will becomes not his own, relinquished to another, his theological master. Now, the hierarchy becomes formed as a System of religious thought. An army of slaves … Christian slaves, Muslim slaves, Jewish slaves. The list goes on, forever. Scientologists and Nietzscheans are the next two predominant form of global cults. A new religion emerges as the old ones fail to seduce, fail to adapt to a changing climate of philosophical contentions. The weak-minded, become free, for a moment, before becoming seduced by new masters.

Enlightenment, then, is a process of relinquishing one’s own Will to Power. A man becomes a woman, finding his personal volition through another, a Priest, a Pope, a Papacy. God is the Father’s Father, a lineage of socialized institution.

Those who believe in the Bible, or the Quran, or any holy teaching, are ignorant, according to and directly proportional to their, “Enlightenment”. Fools. Followers. An army of sheep. The Meek. The Weak. Anybody who calls himself a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, any New Age bullshit, anything, is a fool. Well, a follower is more appropriate. A slave, to a master, who usually selectively reasons this fact out of existence. He blindly follows his Master’s Will (The Will of God) as though he were not aware of his physical emasculation. He is ignorant to this fact. Thus, the religious mind, becomes ignorant by definition. An exchange is made, between knowing and unknowing, between the physical and the metaphysical, between empirical belief and superstition … supersuppostion. The fool cannot comprehend the fact, of his own obliteration, of his own devaluation. His Will becomes lost. His Mind becomes not his own. His Power is reference through another, an Absolute Authority in which a female finds her power through a male. Men become females, cannot think of their own volition.

As a philosopher, I stand in opposition to this virulent strain of thought, against the religious mind. Rather than allow you, the religious, to burden me. I place the burden of thought back upon you, to fathom the true nature of this ‘exchange’. Yet, some persist, make a martyr out of another, unnecessarily. You insist. I persist. The burden must become placed somewhere. It cannot be left upon the ground otherwise nobody will pick it up. People carry this weight of thinking on their shoulders. Power, then, is the ability to carry such a load, around with him. Enlightenment is the opposite of power, to enlighten your load, to lighten it, yourself. The burden of thought becomes placed upon another, a philosophical authority, perhaps. Perhaps a scientist. Perhaps a demagogue. It really does not matter who, as long as it becomes any other! This is the error of the religious mind.

Anybody who calls himself a Christian, then, or religious in any way whatsoever, outside of the philosophical realm, is my enemy. An enemy to Reason. There are those who manipulate others through this way, this game. The Bible is not a holy book, but rather, a book of fairy tales. So too is the Quran. They mean little to nothing to the thinker, the writer of them, Man. God does not exist, except as that man which Authored the Bible himself, the Author of Jesus, or of Socrates. Authors. Yet, the weak-minded cannot help themselves, even in the face of an overriding reason. They continually choose enlightenment, decadence, hedonism. They continually choose a certain type of weakness, a traceable type. If you are one of these types, then I will expose you in the philosophical realm. You either seek Mastery over others, through religion, or slavery to another. But, there cannot be an alternative. Thus, I hope, those of you here, will at the very least, realize your respective mastery or slavery. Are you a priest? A prophet? Or on your knees in blind prayer?

Perhaps you pray for Strength, God’s Strength, one that never seems to befall you. Yes, I know your kind. Enjoy this sermon. :wink:

Pray that you hadn’t read it, that you had kept your warm delusions. Do you feel the burden, yet?

2

Hello Capitalized:

— Enlightenment is the process of unburdening one’s thinking upon another, wiser, or more knowledgeable, individual.
O- That is your belief system- you faith. Enlightenment is awakening.

— There is nothing magical or superstitious about it. One man is intelligent. Another man is unintelligent. Therefore, naturally, a society relegates specialized task. One man thinks; the other … obeys orders as (religious) commandments. This is the manner in which a master controls his slave, and also the manner in which priests control their disciples.
O- Who defines who is “intelligent” and who is unintelligent? The fact is that it is a relative standard that varies from person to person, which is why, naturally, a master utilizes violence and the treath of violence, rather than reason, to make another man his slave.

— The weak-minded ones (Christians/Buddhists/Muslims/Atheists)
O- The “enlightened”, according to you…

— all seek to release their burden, of thinking, onto another man/individual. For the religious, this social phenomenon produces a moral authority, an authority automatically wrought with absolution. The moral absolutist, hence, is one who unburdens himself with thinking, with personal responsibility, with personal accountability. His will becomes not his own, relinquished to another, his theological master.
O- His theological master is simply himself. The Other is a master in so far as he corroborates for the believer his own natural bias.

— Now, the hierarchy becomes formed as a System of religious thought. An army of slaves … Christian slaves, Muslim slaves, Jewish slaves.
O- They become a movement, a social movement, a social entity, thereby doing what is most natural to what is, in the final analysis, a social animal.

— Enlightenment, then, is a process of relinquishing one’s own Will to Power.
O- Actually, it would be a method of achieving one’s Will to Power, which exist invariably in all men, be it master or slave.

— Those who believe in the Bible, or the Quran, or any holy teaching, are ignorant, according to and directly proportional to their, “Enlightenment”.
O- No. They are “ignorant” according only to another “enlightened” fellow.

— Fools. Followers. An army of sheep. The Meek. The Weak. Anybody who calls himself a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, any New Age bullshit, anything, is a fool.
O- What about Nietzscheans?

— Thus, the religious mind, becomes ignorant by definition.
O- What about the atheist mind?

— An exchange is made, between knowing and unknowing
O- Just as you have done?

— His Will becomes lost. His Mind becomes not his own. His Power is reference through another, an Absolute Authority in which a female finds her power through a male. Men become females, cannot think of their own volition.
O- Did you grow up with your biological father in the home, or was he never present? How do you feel about your mother and how would this have obliterated your objectivity on this issue, in your opinion?

— As a philosopher, I stand in opposition to this virulent strain of thought, against the religious mind.
O- The lover of wisdom is a woman running after her man- the weak, the ignorant, longing for what is strong and wise. The philosopher therefore does not really stand “against” but is a close relative of the religious mind.

— Anybody who calls himself a Christian, then, or religious in any way whatsoever, outside of the philosophical realm, is my enemy. An enemy to Reason.
O- Actually he is your friend. Your only disagreement is about the source of authority and not over authority itself.

— The Bible is not a holy book, but rather, a book of fairy tales.
O- Everything is a bit like a fairy tale. Without this, reason itself is impossible.

3

Tell me what is Reason (with an R)?
Are you the priest of Reason, it’s defender?

I see no reasons in your hypothesis, only an ipse dixit.

4

Incorrect, Omar, I do not need faith to point out my argument, and to state the validity of my propositions on this subject. Just as one man may become larger than another man, quantified to science, and easy to see from any man on the street, the difference between 5’ and 7’ becomes obvious. So too do other such discrepancies in human cognition. The exact same difference, both referring to survival abilities, the method in which an organism genetically has risen to success and prominence, over millions, or countless, revolutions of spirit.

Everybody does, according to a STANDARD. There is an objective validity inside the matter of intelligence. The primary presupposition is … survivalism. Intelligence is an (reason) ability, a coping mechanism against a cruel and harsh universe, Nature. Death lays waiting, right around the corner, everywhere. Predators always stalk prey, from the beginning to the end of time.

You contradict yourself. Intelligence is relative? Then size is relative, too? You presume that the small man, 5’, is larger than the large man, 7’? You, quite clearly, are wrong, incorrect, Omar. Try another angle, er, angel.

Yes.

But, the believer actually becomes controlled by his Theological master. The priest then lays down his poisonous rhetoric to his slave, his flock, as commandments from God. The weak-minded ones lap all this up, cannot get enough of it. Ignorance is bliss. One man’s will becomes not his own. They, the herd, then follow a singular will, a more dominant one, as one travels up the hierarchical pyramid, to the top of belief itself. Belief, is a desire, at its root. This is the deepest fallacy of religion, that, not all thoughts are created equal, just as well as men themselves.

Yes.

No, it is the slave mentality, the art of the feminine, to find Power through another, Stronger male. An alpha male. Herd mentality.

God is a real man, then. One who controls all from the top-down. One who others, all others, rest their faith in his moral absolution. This is scientific.

Incorrect, the standard for slaves is not measured through another system of slavery. It is measured by action, and, dictated by their very belief systems. Their morality. What is right, is so, according to God’s Divine Will.

Nietzscheans are the same. I will take this thinking to all, as well. Even perspectivism is a form of Enlightenment, picking and choosing an “-ism” to define oneself, as part of a (philosophical) grouping. I am such-and-such -ist, a perspectivist, for example, an empiricist, a dogmatist, on and on we go.

Atheism is also a religion, one that replaces God with another word : “Nothing”. Atheism is a very powerful religion because it presupposes different rhetoric, a much more advanced one, in my opinion.

Yes. Enlightenment even applies to Masters, just as height applies to all men. Just because one man is 7’ tall, means nothing outside a context (for survival). Intelligence, then, reflects a power, a strength, over others. The larger man is seen as immediately more intimidating to smaller men, due to his physical strength. So too is the intelligent man seen as intimidating to the stupider ones. The disciple only aspires to become a priest, for example, just as a slave desires an escape from slavery, into mastery.

Yes. He was present.

‘God’ is a metaphor for “father’s father”. ‘Nature’ or ‘Earth’ are metaphors for “mother’s mother”. My objectivity is genetically sourced. My mother has little to nothing to do with my thinking, other than, that I received my (perhaps unique) type of intelligence from her. Intelligence, and almost all predominant survival traits (including size), are passed down through maternal lineage, not on the paternal side. Not necessarily. Males are, for the most part, expendable to society, and to life. Just a few are only necessary inside any given society, to fertilize the main crop of females.

I doubt this, because, what man does is struggle to acquire Power, in the form of wisdom and knowledge. Females do not do this. Females struggle for affection and noticeability. A female’s strength, is in her facial beauty, and the form of her body. For males, not necessarily so. Man, the human male, is forced to fend for himself. When he comes to depend on another, for too long, as a child can forever come to depend on his/her parents, then he becomes mentally retarded in a certain sense of speaking. His mind weakens, becomes religious in its belief. It even, eventually, altogether relinquishes the notion of negativity, doubt, and skepticism, in exchange for only ‘positive’ values. Then, the final act of the religious mind, before Enlightenment is reached, is to rest all certainty, and cast all doubt away from, the nature of ‘negativity’. It then, religiously, presumes itself as a standard for The Good, as positive.

Again, I doubt it. Authorities are natural consequences of their natural divisions, between a large or small man, or between a smart or stupid man. Theologically, however, a moral authority spans great lengths of time and history. It is not so much intelligence that dominates a religion, as opposed to a certain type of genius, a specieal type. Thus, I have a reason to believe, that authorities are bred into creation, not so much appearing out of thin air. Authority, then, is historical as well, not passing from just one generation to the next, but, as a unique lineage. Judaism observes this fact very well. Religion, then, is a bloodline of beliefs. God, however, remains as just a (simple) metaphor. The followers of God, the weak-minded, cannot see the truth of this fact. The herd mentality prevents the realization, and the slaves prefer their slavery over a lifetime of responsibility, of mastership.

Not everything, Omar, not everything. Reason is not a fairy tale, because, the reasons for existence trend toward an objective limit, not a subjective one. This is, primarily, where the burden of thinking is spawned. Enlightenment, then, is counter-intuitive to reasoning. One cannot procreate a thought while simultaneously rejecting and/or destroying thought. Reason is this creation, of thinking, and of thoughts. Religion, then, is the institutionalization of them, ultimately derived from a (philosophical) authority. But, let us give the religious mind the benefit of their doubts. Many followers of God, also doubt Him. This is a logical contradiction. You may attempt to work it out, if you please.

5

An ability to create/produce new/original thoughts.

No, one cannot be/become a ‘priest’ of Reason. It does not work like that. There necessarily is no rhetoric aimed at seducing the masses. Reason is antithetical to institutionalization and socialization.

So why did you bother me with a response, then? If you seek to waste your own time, then do not waste mine as well. You may not value your time. But I highly value mine.

6

If you despise religious thought, why post among their voices?
Are you looking for instigation; challenge?
You are aggressive and wishing for conflict; contest?
I offer none.
I say walk away and enlighten as you would; let them enlighten as they would.

You see only one path as possible in life; there are several.
You see tiers of value and place religious minds on a very low rating and purely philosophical minds on a higher value.
This is no different than religious minds; only you value thinking while they value feeling.

Butter-side up vs. Butter-side down.
Pick your preference but each holds butter and bread.
Each ends up in your stomach.

7

Well, the problem with your argument is singular- If you actually interact with members of the various creeds you’ve talked about, you’ll inevitably discover that many of them aren’t fools/weak-minded etc. So, you’ve got an interesting concept here, but empirically, it doesn’t pan out. I think an attempt to characterize people in a way that doesn’t wash empirically is more polemic than philosophy.

 For example, you assert that God doesn't exist.  That's certainly a controversial position- and by controversial, I mean one that one could debate, find arguments for on both sides.  If you and I had such a debate, odds are I'd make you look like an idiot. And if not me, someone else surely could.  That's not to say you ARE an idiot or that atheists in general are idiots or whatever, it's just to say I've been doing this (obsessively) for a long time...

…more to the point, you and Nietzsche both seem to enjoy making bombastic declarations about how the world is. Even when you’re right, that isn’t philosophy. But when you aren’t, it little more than a windy greeting card. What you’ve said here could be on the paper placemats at a cynical theme-restaurant, for all the philosophical work it does.

8

I believe all generalization is stupid. Including the generalization I just made saying that all generalization is stupid. Saying that all religious people are not intelligent is a generalization, and on top of that, it is one that can be easily disproved. If you read the biography of Albert Einstein, he was a very religious man. Granted he changed his religious beliefs along his life, which is pretty common amongst thinkers, but none less he was religious. Would you say Einstein was not intelligent? As the people from the scientific/philosophical community would say, every theory is no longer valid if a single argument/experiment disproves it. Albert Einstein is an example that disproves your theory.
I wouldn’t consider you a philosopher as philosophy requires open mindness in order to allow the philosopher consider all possible vantage points around an issue of interest, and you definitely come across in a very aggressive and matter of fact way that is not compatible with the approach a true philosopher would take.

9

It is clear from the previous three responses that you religious minds confuse the point of this post and thread. Perhaps I should have been clearer from the beginning; so I shall attempt to clarify myself. Enlightenment, is an issue of weight. Knowledge, and truth, weighs heavily on human minds. These are burdens for the human mind to carry. Truth, is unpleasant. And there is no finite amount of knowledge that one may acquire. However, there comes a point to where the mind breaks under the pressure. The heavier the load, of knowledge, the more the mind can fracture under the gravity of that knowledge. This is human consciousness. Therefore, then, ALL minds seek (relative) degrees of Enlightenment. But, in all cases of enlightenment, what is reflected is a need, a weakness, by one, toward another. The weaker, is, then, one who cannot carry, or no longer can carry, the weight of his own knowledge. This burden then begins to weigh one down, the thinking of a man. He seeks another, an Authority, a moral authority, to think for him. This is the nature of religion, and, its Enlightening affects. The more powerful the man, and his intelligence, the more (knowledge) he can carry. Just as man evolves to grow taller and stronger, so too does he grow wiser and more knowledgeable. These are different, respective routes to successful genetic propagation.

Enlightenment, then, is universal. Mostly employed by women, who find an endless amount of men to carry their knowledge, and purses, for them … so too do feminine males seek a more ‘divine’ Authority, a moral authority : God. This is a physical process, one that may be reduced to a science, and sociological. ALL social groupings are reflected by such a dynamic, this process of relinquishing knowledge, and authority, to another, in matters of intelligence and/or imagination. Although both really are the same thing, reflecting a unique Wisdom. Genetic, genetive, cognitive dynasties. Not only are bloodlines passed between generations, but so too are thoughts, memories, and biological-pathological biases. Color discrimination, of course, is the most definitive evidence of this genetic phenomenon. People prefer certain, distinct colors. However, that is another matter.

The process of enlightenment is exposed through all forms of proper, philosophical dialectic. An exposition, of knowledge. Even now, my exposition is an enlightenment of my own. I, creating these words and explanations, enlighten myself by a public exposition, on a pulpit. This (religious) forum is a church, in this context. ALL and ANY words are spawned in this exact way : expositions, religious expositions. Then, to voice oneself, entails a necessary enlightenment, or at the very least, a social plea for it. My words, finding an adherent, will unburden myself through a (mutual) understanding. All social interactions operate in this fashion, precluded by respective authorities. Authority is based on intelligence, and, power. Whether it be social, physical strength, intellectual rigor, whatever … authority is voiced by what is known. And what is known, is the very premise for enlightenment. What is known, is the burden of that knowledge.

Truth, then, is the density of knowledge. Knowledge is ‘fluffy’ and ‘soft’ without Truth. Leaden with Truth, however, knowledge becomes something heavy, and, powerful. This reflects a more philosophical rigor, not a religious one. The religious mind, then, seeks power through another, as I explicitly have expressed. The enlightened ones are those who place their knowledge onto another, a stronger man, a stronger mind. This represents authority. That one, a moral authority, will exchange a (strong) foundation, of belief, for slavery, loyalty, and an eventual obliteration. Master, to slave, dialectic.

A shame to those who cannot understand the nature of enlightenment. The slave wishes to think and imagine himself as free, although, he is not, and probably never will be again. Religion is not a temporary social phenomenon. The religious mind seeks enlightenment for a lifetime, or worse, an eternity. God represents this eternal force, this eternal foundation. An eternal enlightenment, a timeless slavery.

10

Overall…I think you mostly just make a large amount of presumptions which mostly just satisfy your perspective.
shrug fine with me, but it doesn’t mean that’s just the way it is in some universal format.

For instance, enlightenment is just a word that means to become aware of something regarding a given thing; typically referring to something that isn’t directly obvious.

You could do this in emotional contexts as well as thought, and equally with a mixture of the two.
I wouldn’t suggest religious individuals stifle enlightenment for themselves or escape it inherently by being religious any more than any other person on the planet.

Most religious enlightenment concepts that exist in doctrinal form require adherents to feel with their senses and emotions and reflect thoroughly upon this.
Some call it prayer, some mantra, some meditation, some worship, some fasting, and more…
Doesn’t really matter; they are all asking the adherent to do the same thing.

This is just a variation of the same thing a philosopher does with reason; critically think about a thing and then reflect thoroughly upon what they examined.

My only stance here is that both are equal to each other; your thinking man and the religious feeling man.
They are just approaching enlightenment from different focal directions.

The difference principly, is the dialect.
Religious dialects don’t make reasonable sense to everyone; it’s crack talk and dilusion.
The terms of allegory don’t translate well and instead cause blockages instead of access points for enlightenment.

For those that perceive religious approaches as such, great, don’t use it; it’s the wrong language for you.
Go with pure reason; it will probably translate better for you.

For some, pure reason is the lost translation that impedes enlightenment.
For them, fine…stay with religious approaches and avoid pure reason.

Most, however, are in the vast grey area in between these extremes and employ both reason and feeling; both philosophy and theology.

11

Incorrect, and your projection is noted. My philosophy is not presumptuous inasmuch as it is refined through reason. This is antithetical to the religious mind, for points which I will shortly explain, since you and others seem to become immune to human reason. Patience is the virtue here.

You misunderstand the physicality of enlightenment. The stupider clings to the smarter, just as the fool clings to the wise. Is this a mystery, to you???

So too is God’s Divine Word, just a word. You miss the point. You misunderstand the dialectic.

Indeed. Enlightenment is a mystery to those who seek it. There are reasons for this cloudy thought, this haze of the deluded mind.

Yes, but, then one crosses over from philosophy into theology. Emotional language is practicing the art of prostelyizing. The stunted, slavish minds cull to these words even faster than to those words of reason. Reason, ironically, becomes doubted by the religious and slavish mindset. Slaves desire a different type of culling than reason. They want to keep the mystery of cosmology to delude themselves further : another type of decadence/hedonism.

But they clearly do. Why else would churches be made, and religious sub forums on a philosophy forum?

The church has internal checks to ensure that its most stringent disciples, ascetics, do not betray them and their moral fervor for reason and logic.

Yes, the Papacy breaks the will of a disciple upon His (divine will). This adheres to every point I’ve made thus far.

No, it is the exact opposite. A philosopher, burdens himself with knowledge. While the religious mind does not. This is the fundamental difference between that of reason and faith. The religious mind seeks to unburden himself while the philosopher further burdens himself, with thought, contemplation, meditation. Most religions and theologians have the process backward, without realizing it. That the weak minded cull to the strong, is no coincidence, then. Philosophy is not a (or any) type of religion. Not yet, anyway.

False, the two approach enlightenment from two different angles. The philosopher, a masochist, burdens himself with thinking. He does not seek enlightenment through another, as the religious man does. The philosopher does not seek God. God is unnecessary, a word used as part of the corresponding dialectic. God is simply a control device then.

The religious man wants to “take the load off”. The philosopher, not necessarily so. Because, the philosopher realizes this (knowledge) is the source of his own strength. Not outside of him, as the religious man finds this strength in God, an external source. The philosopher finds it within himself. Yet, undoubtedly, those ‘enlightened’ ones of the faith will call this God and claim that, “God is with me!”

Two different sides, the side of the masters, and the side of the slaves. However, the source of the enlightenment, where one places his burden, either on himself or another, is the difference.

Reason impedes enlightenment, YES! You understand on some basic level. This is why philosophy is antithetical to religion.

Reason impedes enlightenment!!! Good job, Stumps. I knew I could count on you to deliver.

Each have their uses. Nobody is absolute. People just trend toward different ends, different (social) uses. All desire mastership, but do not want to sacrifice for it. None desire slavery, but do want the hedonism and decadence conjoining it.

12

So basically you claim reason is synonymous with creativity, how can you prove such a thing?
Creativity is antithetical to socialization? Ah, so you mean artists do not socialize, lets say, with other artists? How do you know this?

You also seem to dismiss “nietzscheans” while at the same time using the “will to power” metaphor.

13

Incorrect, not synonymous, but, creativity is a crucial and primary aspect of reason. Faith and/in God, on the other hand, requires no creativity, just blind dogma, a blindfold.

Science? Tell me which proof you require outside of reason and I will do my best to oblige you.

On a certain level, yes. The most notable artists and scientists (thinkers) of human history almost always are introverts. There is a reason for this.

They do socializing on some level, although it is probably minimal if not none. This is reflective of enhanced or advanced individuality. Individuals despise others, cannot stand other people. Why? Think about that. Power through another (feminine), or, power through yourself (masculine). Which one is more difficult to acquire? Imagine trusting other people, blindly. You find power through them, follow their word to every end. Surely, you will die very quickly. Another person will use you to their own gain. They will manipulate you, bind you to their will. Christianity, for example. Any religion.

I use the word ‘gravity’, does this make me a Newtonian? I sleep on a white sheet, does this make me a Klan member?

Association neither means nor implies dedication. The will to power exists because Nazi Germany, through Hitler, attempted to extend the logical implication of Nietzsche’s philosophy. They failed. But the will to power still stands as a route to power, through the collective masses and their contrary will. History proves this fact. Just look behind you. Words and expressions are not necessarily ‘owned’, even by their creators. Newton did not invent Gravity. Rather, he discovered it. He created the Theory of it. Does he then own the word, the concept, that extends before and beyond him? No. I use the word God, as well. Does that make me a Christian? How about Allah? Does that make me a Muslim?

14

What are the other aspects of reason then?

By proof I meant argumentative reason. All I’ve seen was a pretty narrative about how stupid religious people are (which is never new or creative).

Then why would they not socialize on another level as well? If there are levels, there can be one level where they don’t socialize and another on which they socialize, so there is no certainty about wherever they are socialized or antisocialized.

How do you know they despise others?

That wasn’t my claim. My claim was that you dismiss others who use “will to power” and other nietzschean language while at the same time you use it as well. So what is the objection to them, if you yourself admit that there is something useful in nietzschean philosophy?

15

I’m on the run, but in short I have this to say Capitalized Interest:
You assume your view from only perceiving (or showing perception of, at least) one religious construct; those which contain a singular “God”, and namely the Christian formatted “God”.

So while there one could say a person looks to “another” for enlightenment, in many other religions, such is not the case; many call for adherents to look into their own personage for enlightenment; not to some other entity.

16

Other than creativity, the other primary aspects of reason are self discovery and recognition.

How unfortunate that you missed the fundamental point of this exposition, then.

Socializing is relative to social contributions. Common people reveal and expose themselves, many times, blatantly, in order to gain attention. Introverts do not do this, at least, not in the same way. To prove this, think about the quality of a painting, between that of a genius and that of a mundane artist. The genius, naturally, will create very powerful paintings, that pull the greatest attention of the masses. Not only that, but the genius goes an extra distance. Not only can they captivate the common minds of the masses, but they can even cull the most discriminating critics. Either way, the paintings are overwhelming successes. This, by itself, accumulates an overwhelming amount of attention, attention that geniuses may necessarily not want in the first place. Why not? Think about fame. Fame is akin to power. More points on this, later. But, for now, know that the genius (painter) is not necessarily in a position to flaunt his talents. Aristry then, or thinking, represent a natural ability of the very person, the very artist. That he draws attention, perhaps even in the millions of others, may not have been his intention at all, or in fact, just the opposite of what he originally intended to do. What makes good art? How about, to start, capturing the very essence of the medium, of a phenomenon. To recognize nothing at all, is beautiful. Or, at the very least, what other people (than the artist) see as beautiful.

The thing about the greatest painters is the beauty of the minds which transcribed them. Philosophy, is no different.

Think about a first day at elementary school or kindergarten. On the playground, there are many children, looking for security. Many cling to teachers, an institution. Others, mainly males and boys, will seek out the largest boys on the playground. They want protection and security from the largest, most physically capable males. They must prove themselves, all. Now, the large males, feel an anxiety, because, they do not know why others are (physically) attracted to them. But, they detect that something is wrong, and that people are lying to them. They are. The smaller children exchange favors (of friendship) for security. They form groups accordingly. Now, the largest children despise others, because of resentment. Lies are proof of this. Larger kids, and people, generally are stupider than smaller kids, and people, because they cannot detect lies as well as their (smaller) counterparts. They feel and fear this fact, but, cannot detect it on an intellectual and visceral level. But the resentment lingers, and stays, as an anxiety.

That the only reason people/kids LIKE a large kid, is not because of who he is per se, but how large he is, how well he serves an ulterior purpose. This is the underlying social dynamic. And it extends far beyond that of size and socialization. Why do people congregate, except for social protection, and benefits? Individuals, however, realize the nature of these interactions, and despise the pretenses surrounding them. It is not that people come to me because they “want to be my friend”, except, that they “need something from me”. The larger kids realize this fact much quicker than others, constituting a special kind of (social) power. The larger kids, then, intuit that they are unnecessary on an individual level. When this realization occurs, those who are introverts separate from those who are extroverts. An individual, regardless of this division, despises others because of the need reflected by the socialization entailed by human interactions.

That is how and why I know.

No, I do not. When I detect Nietzschean language, I use different methods than the simple utilization of words. Nietzscheans defend Nietzsche. They go well out of their way to. This is disregarding the very language used by anybody. It is association, to another, to an authority.

Just because something is useful, does not make it valid. And that is beside the point, of how people/thinkers follow Nietzschean philosophy. My thoughts, and my philosophy, is antithetical toward authorization. I attempt to force others to think for themselves, and, to own every word they speak. I find that many, especially religious minds seeking enlightenment, simply cannot do this. It becomes impossible for them, to hold onto a ladder with one hand, and their saviors with their other hand. They must choose. To climb, is to let go of those below you. To fall, is to remain clinging onto dead memories and dead bodies. I would kick them all off. In fact, one must advance on his own, anyway.

17

Incorrect, I listed many religions and ideologies in this thread. This path (toward enlightenment) is not aimed at any particular religion or belief system. It is aimed toward all.

This is the notion of asceticism, then. But, even still, the labels different religions attach to this “self discovery” is predictable. Imagine a Christian disciple, an advanced ascetic, a monk, is training himself to become ‘Christian’. But, instead of finding God, let us say he finds Satan instead, or Allah, whatever. Will he become accepted by Christianity??? Resoundingly, no. His faith is invalid, despite himself. These are not coincidences. Enlightenment is the process I described.

What is the monk pursuing, except, to enlighten himself and place his burden upon another? A rose by any other name. Authority STILL operates in the exact same (social) fashion.

18

The only aspect I disagree with is the concept, and perhaps I am misreading you, that the religious or spiritualist are incapable of attaining enlightenment; that enlightenment is only available through the weight of reason that conflicts a mind and through reason adopts even more weight.

What is the religious or spiritualist that deters them where the thinker is not and therefore steadfast?

19

Enlightenment comes from distinguishing who’s smarter than you are, and learning from those people. If you look closely, you’ll find the beautiful irony in that.

20

Hi Capitalized Interest,
First off, I think that this thread is a set-up, so now I’ll proceed and fall into the trap you made and answer you.

I think you mean “lightening” your load rather than to be illumined, taught or informed by someone, some event, or some experience, which is what I have understood enlightenment to mean. It has nothing to do with intelligence, which we could call the manifestation of a high mental capacity, or the faculty of understanding, since people have been enlightened by the inspiration of a moment, rather than employing their mental capacity. This is an example that even Einstein gave to show that his discoveries were more than not subject of inspiration, rather than his own or someone else’s mental power.

In a militarised society you may find the distinction between the one who thinks and the one who obeys orders, but even there it tends to be difficult to find the one who isn’t obeying orders. He who obeys normally sees some benefit in obeying – and therefore “thinks”. Your thesis is too crude.

Is English your first language? I find this and other sentences incorrectly written. Perhaps that is why you are hard to understand.

Perhaps you are just a scientologist who is spreading his teaching by this means. I must admit I know nothing about scientology, and perhaps it is just another form of neo-Darwinism, but the way I hear you is that you say that weak-minded people seek to unburden their mind so as to not have to think and to not have to bear responsibility. You give examples of Religions, but I can assure you that many non-religious people have a similar aversion to thinking, various forms of consumerism and addictions are sure signs of that.

You assume that there are others who become master because they are willing to use their minds, and these collect slaves or followers. However, I find that the most enlightened are those who send potential followers away in order to become enlightened themselves, rather than collecting a group of people around them or becoming masters.

This is your own definition of enlightenment, but not the meaning we find in common use. If you mean those who assume themselves to be “enlightened” you should say that – but as I say, I assume that English is not your first language.

The question that I would ask you is whether you have any understanding of “holy teaching” as you call it, or whether your understanding of this subject is as flawed as your use of English. One thing we can see in this paragraph is that you tend to rant when writing about this subject, which suggests that your own mental stability is subject to an emotional surge which impairs your mental capacity. To call yourself “a philosopher” is to use the term in an extremely broad sense, since your views are not profound and you are also not deeply versed in any subject I can recognise.

In short, you are a troll.

Shalom