What beliefs make the most sense to me are these:
*Polytheism, for lack of a better word.
*Belief in multiple realities (having in them highly advanced beings mistaken as gods).
*Perspectivism, because “truths” are conglomerate perspectives.
*Reality has operations which preceed and go beyond the confines of logic. For example, something can exist without a beginning.
What beliefs i see as the popular norms are these:
*Monotheism. A single God created all.
*Belief in one reality, and life only on one planet.
*Faith. Simpler than any complex “isms”.
*A reality created by an omnipotent being, all things being a creation of a prior limitless infinity.
My question is, what beliefs make the most sense to each of you?
I don’t like to believe that things exist that are outside of logic. I like to think that logic has parts that are yet to be discovered, and that they might not even need to be discovered if all I wanna do is understand the world. I’d like to think that if I learn enough logic, that in some way or another it’d become impossible for me to envision a set of circumstances in which no logic at all were applicable.
I dunno. I like to think that things which are unprovable can be proven, it’s just that maybe we don’t know how.
I believe the children are our future.
I believe I can fly.
I believe in the tooth fairy.
Sometimes.
Other times I’m not really sure.
Then there are times I’m sure I’m not sure which is still ok because I’m at least sure of that and in that there’s one thing at the very least that I can believe.
I believe there is a rationale or logic applied to any decisions people make. Regardless of uniformity in different people’s application of specific ideals to situations, they have to apply some rationale. Even if people are acting in an almost unconscious manner, there is a rationale behind the action. Even the instincts are guilty of a rationale, as senseless as such a statement is.
In addition, fuck Plato, he’s a brilliant mind(s), but his approach to epistimology is a cop out. To be certain of our uncertainties is of little benefit and a more practical set of grounds should be employed in decision making or belief building.
That was an interesting thing to say.
If we were really smart, beyond human limitations, our logic would be allot more all-encompassing, too.
Everything would theoretically make more sense if we had bigger minds.
Trevor_W, there’s always an opportunity to contruct reasons around our experiences. So i agree with your point, too.
When I ride the bus downtown, i see lots of people.
Nobody attacks me, and most are easy to talk to.
For my own “reasons” i dont see people as very evil, in general.
“Evil” only exists in us. The concept only exists because of us.
Most people tend to see “evil” almost as an entity floating in space that finds host in the human mind from time to time. I’m saying that “evil” is just a description of a mode of thinking – a capability of the human mind.
This is not to say that all human behavior is “evil”, but rather that there always exists a capacity for “evil”. We defined the idea, we utilize it, and yet we refuse to take responsibility (thus concepts like the “devil” are formulated).
We are “evil” because we are the sole source of evil. Everyone has the capacity for “evil”, but I cannot think of another place that “evil” exists in the natural world. So, the way I see it, “evil” can only exist in the actions of a human being. We are the only, and purest acting form of evil, and any dormant form of evil exists in the human mind. “Evil” is, in essence, a malevolent projection of ourselves.
Anyway, the real point is that “evil” should, in my opinion, not be attributed to some intangible force or religion-based entity – “Evil” exists in, and because of, us. Evil is our fault and our responsibility.
The more we shrug the idea off and attribute its existence to something ‘ethereal’, the more we condone moral decay.
Of course, in this context “morality” could also be assumed an invention of humanity, and therefore a part of us. However, this is what makes me question the whole basis of morality – we are judged as if we can abstain from all “evil” by choice, but evil is a part of us.
That’s interesting.
If i remember right, nietszche described morality as something which is a part of us, but philosophers tended to set up ideals and even the mind as something separate from the body, therefor mystics identifying various things as separate from the physical plane. We say “my body” instead of “me” as the body, and that’s an unnecissary, even a hindering method of identification, according to nietszche. If im not recalling this properly, please tell me.
My personal philosophy is this:
Our soul is an expression of real existance as a compound down to the quantum level. That is to say, the soul is an expression firstly of the fundamental reality of being. This is even more real than an experience. From this basis creation comes about. Things like good and evil are each a complex creation of this living order of reality known as the physical body. Each human behavior is a tiny expression of the universe. Human nature is reality-nature, because we live in reality and are real. If our soul could transcend reality then we would have morals and ideas beyond nature, but i dont see things that way.
Because of this, i think we are both agreeing that morality, good and bad, are part of what humans are, and humans are a part of what nature is.
Thus the cynic is born. Nature is indifferent, our instinctual drives alone will allow us survival and some sense of moral value. We distance ourselves from nature by defining our instinctual drives in a way that agrees with our logic. Nature does not conform to our logic, so that which really matters in life can be found in that which is most natural to us. All else - that is, all of our manufactured ideas and societal constructs mean nothing.
Those manufactured values are our means of separating ourselves from the rest of nature; from what we consider ‘animal’. Therefore, I can only conclude that what makes us ‘animal’ is what we should embrace and find moral value in – that is to say our drives and motives . The means by which we place ourselves above nature (so to speak) is the ‘mother’ of evil. This evolves into the means by which we begin separating ourselves from each other until our nature becomes of no consequence to us. We become ‘different’ by choice, and by force, where nature remains indifferent.
I think that there’s some wisdom in what you are saying, but it seems to me that much is left unsaid, aswel.
We can aspire to be more than what we are. We can imagine big beautiful things.
Even if something is universally unimportant, it can still be very important to a certain type of person.
It may be that it’s impossible to be separate from nature, but we can make it appear as though we are, or persuade ourselves of such.
Such self-deception could be seen as a form of evil.
That is a good question, though I’d have to hypothesize that everything could not have been ‘manufactured’ by human beings. I don’t believe everything to have been created that way at least, so I really cannot answer your question without knowledge of the supposed source. My point is that ideas manufactured by people have proven their capacity toward ‘evil’; I do not see the same kind of calculated malevolence exhibited in nature outside of the human mind.
Again, I think Epicurus hit the nail on the head when he said “we have nothing to hope and nothing to fear”. Aspirations and active imaginations are are essentially coping mechanisms in this context. They are ways of reassuring yourself that you are meant for greater things, or there are these wondrous, beautiful experiences awaiting you that will fill you with happiness. I like to think that the imagination is incredibly important in the realms of creative application (like arts & sciences), but I also think the imagination is our primary means of self-delusion. Why must we imagine “beauty” or aspire toward “happiness”? I think that happiness is more a matter of recognition in one’s life than something to be sought and obtained. We have beauty all around us and we are capable of becoming and/or experiencing “more than what we are (or have)”. It is a matter of living happily versus always trying to fill your life with ‘happiness’. Does that make sense?
I agree, though I would have to question what the merit of the importance to the particular person is. Is it necessary for that person’s happiness or survival? I think these small materialistic values are what distract us from the real value of life.
Also, I don’t really think universals exist outside of an idealistic context.
I’m not saying that such self-deception is a form of evil in itself, but it breeds evil. I suppose I agree that it could be seen as a form of evil since I can see no benefit from it. However, wishing to be distinguished from nature seems relatively harmless in itself when compared to the consequences of that wish.
the isms i most identify with are probably Pragmatism and Naturalism - i’d say that in general, the belief that what works is what’s true and the assertion that all things are natural are 2 of my more firmer held beliefs. i hold those things to be largely self-evident, really. but i try to always allow for the possibility that i’m wrong in such presumptions - i just go with what appears most likely to me based on my experience.
anything is possible but only one thing (everything) actually IS
are these just language games or do they at least allude to some concrete reality? i’m doubtful that’s there’s anyway to tell for sure, it’s probably some combination of both that we don’t yet have the words for
which leads me to Materialism and Determinism - i wouldn’t take a hardline stance on either - but if the one is true, the other kind of follows, and it’s in general more efficient just to assume that for all scientific intents and purposes materialism is true and determinism of one sort or another then follows.
in the end though it’s more the question of how many of us agree upon the right words to use in describing reality = so we should never hold any ism or it’s associated language to be absolutely correct in describing reality - perhaps that’s reflective of my belief in skepticism and my belief that all language is descriptive of material phenomena.
i believe we as philosophers have an ethical obligation to doubt our own positions, but that’s just my own belief and personal bias - a part of my own largely aesthetic judgement of what is real, and so on - doubt is real because it is infinite - another vicious cycle spinning off into infinity - like the “self”. everything that is real is cyclical like that, and even that becomes to at least some extent a mere consequence of language
there is no seperation of philosophy from language because language is the only material bridge between two individual, labelled subjectivities - either that or it’s exact opposite (which amounts to the same thing) is something that makes sense to me, if not anybody else
…and doubt them more thoroughly and rigorously than the positions of others.
Excellent, and very valid point. I could not agree more if you haven’t gathered that much already. Introspection is the philosopher’s lantern – a means by which we light the path of our logic.
I don’t quite understand this part though. “Infinity”, as a subject or attribute, is not real as far as i can tell. We have no proof of infinity and the concept has never been observed or experienced. It is a term used to denote the unknown; a concept used to describe that which seems beyond the realms of human experience, observation, or understanding. How can you justify any aspect of ‘reality’ by use of an immeasurably intangible human concept?
I understand how one can justify a concept by way of observation or experience, but why would one even need to justify that which he perceives as ‘real’ by use of that which is not real?
by infinite i guess i just mean that doubt is a cycle, one that never ends and applies to everything we believe is real - doubt is not absolute but the universe remains always subject to it by virtue of the fact that we posit some universe’s existence in the first place, so doubt is real in a kind of eternal sense like time or existence - it doesn’t ever finish - it helps make things real, contributes to their actuality
something always exists, even if it’s nothing - by similar token whatever’s real is subject to equally real doubts concerning its reality - and those doubts help shape all belief about what’s real, so they are effectively described as real themselves
i don’t know if that makes sense, but it’s more of what i was getting at
i think basically i’m trying to hone my sense of what the terms “real” and “belief” mean using the concept of infinity, rather than the reverse of using the terms to describe infinity itself
I think it can be useful, at least outside of the specialist mathematical sense used by people who know what they’re talking about, to look on “infinite” more as an assertion that it doesn’t make sense to talk of boundaries. “God’s love is infinite” simply means we don’t have to worry about God’s love running out or being inadequate, “the possibilities are infinite” means that we don’t need to restrict our predictions based on an impossibility (although practically speaking, the predictions of common sense are assumed)… so “doubt is infinite” in this sense could mean it doesn’t makes sense to claim anything as undoubtable, maybe?
*Atheism, the acceptance of a lack of evidence for or against any deities, gods or supreme beings.
*Belief in a universe outside of what the mind perceives, and indifferent to it all at the present time
*Wondererism, where subjective experience is more important and relevant than objective reality
*Quantum fluctuations in a universe with a total sum of energy equaling zero seems interesting, but indifferent in the end.