I thought it best to address this before continuing with the thread The New Dark Age Philosophy
Now that the greatest single experiment in all of mankind has come to a close – that of the global contest between truth of reality and public deception – and we see now that across the world in the final battle it is deception that reigns supreme, we have to give credit and consideration as to whether actual truth should ever be of concern.
Knowing that the victor will most often be the liar (proven world over by politics), is it properly loving of parents to teach their children to try to be honest? If we know that such a philosophy as “honesty is the best policy” will cause our children to be losers and possibly crushed by their competition in life should we, with their best interest at heart, teach such a failed life policy?
When we think about it, among the trillions of living creatures on the planet, not one ever actually knows the real truth of their situation. Humans come closer than other creatures, but after thousands of years struggling with trying to know and promote truth only to have it revealed as the weaker position to take, why continue to promote it as a philosophy?
Now world over there will be a “truth narrative” spread that is to be adhered to along with dire consequences for any who attempt to reveal or even privately believe any actual truth. So why fight it?
And additionally what if the real truth is that it isn’t even wise to know the real truth at all? That has been often proposed throughout history it seems.
In the long run actual truth fails to protect against competition
Teaching our children to be honest ensures their weakness
The world governance demands compliance with a preferred truth narrative
Perhaps knowing actual truth is not healthy or wise
Deception seems to be the basis of all life from birth to death
Those sound like good reasons to wisely choose to ignore actual truth and accept whatever lie best suits the situation – to be willing to tell one lie and then the very next day alter to another, possibly even the opposite of the first, and simply deny any wrong doing at all times. Is lying to even be considered “wrong doing”? Many on this board and throughout politics don’t seem to think so.
Is it wiser to just accept and promote with just a sprinkle of truth whatever lie seems to be the need at the time even while believing that the apparent “need at the time” is probably itself a lie? Possibly “just go along to get along” is the wiser choice?
Is the real truth that the real truth is irrelevant and its pursuit unwise?
[size=85]My god I have been suckered into becoming a philosopher – my wife’s going to kill me.[/size]
What particular “real truth” in regard to what particular set of circumstances when, say, liberals and conservatives [and parents] come to conflicting conclusions regarding what the truth is?
You know, given the historical evolution of vast and varied cultures precipitating even more vast and varied human communities squabbling over which behaviors to reward and which to punish.
Incredibly enough, however, he doesn’t think it is important to go there. Merely encompassing the truth in yet another “intellectual contraption” suffices.
I have even invented a new groot – right Wendy? – in which to explore his own so-called Truths:
It seems you have come to this conclusion via your empirical observations. Our empirical observations are open to interpretation and susceptible to doubt. I will attempt to show you, that all things considered, the victor is never the liar and that this is a dictate of pure reason:
Existence Is Perfect (paradoxical to reject). Given this truth, all things considered, the victor is never the liar. It takes an imperfect existence for such a thing to be true. Since it is absurd to reject Existence Being Perfect, it is absurd to believe that the victor will most often be the liar.
Can a lovable child, love his father as much if his father is advising him to not adopt the philosophy of ‘honesty is the best policy’? Surely that father is not as loveable if he is advising his child this way. Surely the child is not that loveable a child if he loves his father as much even after he witnesses his father advising him to do wrong. Where do you draw the line? Can a child love his father if his father advises him to rape women? Or can a father love his child if his child is a rapist? If you are not willing to allow extreme evil to enter into the equation, why allow mild evil to enter into the equation? Suppose you want your child to be employed so you advise him to lie on his CV because you conjecture that everyone else is doing it. How can the quality of love or respect between father and son, authentically or justifiably hold when insincerity to good is being embraced? If you lower your standard to conform to your conjecture of what society’s standards are, surely you have done wrong.
I am strongly in opposition to this. Do you really believe that the truth is the weaker position to take? Do you also believe that the rational are the losers and the irrational are the winners?
If you know the narrative at hand to be absurd, you are supposed to fight it on all fronts. If the matter is a matter of empirical interpretation and you think their interpretation is wrong, you discuss with them.
If one absurdly decides to not pursue the real truth because it may be a bad thing, then one might as well believe in the best possible thing that they can conceive of. They might as well believe that Existence Is Perfect.
You won’t know until you pursue it in a sincere manner. When you find out the truth, you are then able to decide whether it was worth pursuing or not. Until then, you have every reason to pursue the truth in a sincere manner. Why? Because the alternative is to be unreasonable. The alternative is to be wrong by definition. The alternative is to accept that you are unreasonable and wrong. If you then suffer a loss of goodness as a result of this, you cannot blame Existence, you cannot blame anyone else, you can only blame yourself.
Let’s say that you were part of the Underground Railroad assisting the transport of escaped slaves to the north and a confederate knocks on your door to ask if you are sheltering any slaves.
Any person who believes this is correct will LIE.
Now, on cosmic things, there’s no benefit to lying, for yourself or others… but for things like the above, lying is perfect. Sometimes, even, you have to lie to defend yourself, if it doesn’t hurt others, we call them “white lies” meaning that they are pure.
The relevance of truth? Everything I just stated above in a negative zero sum reality is true.
Now! If you want the truth to always be valuable, you need a patch on existence to move forward.
Notice you said “liar” not “the deceived”
Knowing the truth is how you make intelligent choices.
Now if you have an opponent, enemy or simply wish to manipulate someone to do something good for you but not for them, then denying THEM the truth, with a lie, can be a good strategy.
Being duped yourself, however, often ends up bad for you.
Most of us don’t go through life trying to make and then defeat enemies… we prefer friends and allies and we want them to be strong and armed with the truth, to better aid each other and us.
But I suppose in these times, where tribalism is back in a big way and propaganda is everywhere… truth is the enemy of a lot of agendas.
That would be welcomed - but - not likely gauging from your prior efforts to prove.
Throughout history real truth has never been actually known except in a meta, intellectual arena, right? Politics and might actually govern the real world of mankind. If the king dislikes the truth you rightfully espouse, you get killed off anyway. Do you call that “truth is the victor”? “Victor” of what? Certainly not the victor in maintaining your life. The real truth is - at that moment - that lying is your better friend for sake of your life. In that since the real truth would have been the victor but by not lying, you betray the real truth.
At times it seems, in order to obediently follow the real truth we have to deceive others. Telling or revealing the truth is different than following the truth.
I am sure it happens all the time. Love is certainly not dependent upon preaching honesty - “my father was a really great thief. I will always love him for teaching me his wisdom.”
I don’t think you can assume that what seems abhorrent to you inspires the same reaction in everyone.
Very many are but there comes a time to ask the question - and this seems to be that time.
In politics such a declaration would define a loser and be proven to be accurate.
Isn’t it truth that says we should choose our battles rather than just fight every battle that comes along? Is it wise to stand up against truly insurmountable odds? Don’t they call that “suicide” - a notable sin?
and get sent to reeducation camp for even questioning them. I don’t think you understand your predicament in the world. Thinking “outside their box” is strictly forbidden and seriously punished (you are still thinking that you live in a free world - you haven’t been paying attention).
Seemingly irrelevant. The issue is that “perfection” appears to be the willingness to lie or deceive. So believing that the universe is perfect doesn’t change anything.
So if you don’t know, why are you claiming a philosophy concerning it?
The last few thousand years, involving literally the entire world, has now shown that pursuing the truth is lethal - ask any number of philosophers in the past (from what I hear around 50% of them commit suicide).
If driving a car was known to be a 50% chance of dying, would you teach your children to drive?
"Knowing the victor will most often be ‘the deceived’?
But is making “intelligent choices” wiser than just being obedient and letting authority do the thinking? “Consider the lilies of the field” - or actually the trillions of lives since the beginning who never made well informed, intelligent decisions. They prospered most often without suffering worry. Where are the thinker/philosophers? - 50% commit suicide (I have been told).
Nations are built upon deception - always have been. They could have done none other. Real truth has never been known. Authorities are followed in order to gain community strength - “the herd” - without which nothing is accomplished by truth seekers (but that is the question of this thread not a conclusion - yet).
“Often” in a competitive world, yes. But now we are entering a unified authoritarian world where being duped is exactly what is required by authoritarian mandate - punishable for unveiling - even to death. Real truth is actually now forbidden, not merely disfavored.
Isn’t that assuming that real truth is itself favorable? What if knowing the real truth is actually deadly (it has been noted as such by many throughout history - Moses being one).
That is my point except that to me it seems to have reached a finale. The trial is over. The future really is that Orwellian narrative - “Truth is whatever we say it is - believe it or get reeducated”.
So the real truth says that “the deceived” have always been the victor - there has never been anything else - both losers and winners have never actually known the real truth of their real situation.
Noted but the question is really whether Truth has a place. In an Orwellian world the only thing protecting an individual is their compliance to the designated truth narrative - never the real truth.
Is that the real truth or just another deception? It doesn’t ring true to me.
In the USA (The Ugly Swamp of America) being absurdly positive is often promoted - “We can do anything we want”. But in the real world, that notion is merely a fantasy - good or bad? That is actually part of the question here - should we adhere to the real truth or accept the seemingly most profitable lie - like “We can do that!”?
You don’t understand that this current plan took untold trillions of years to make, and to keep all of us out of boredom forever … we looked at the plan and said, “why the fuck not”. That’s all this is… “why the fuck not?”
Problem is… the plan doesn’t work. Wake up. For every win you are sent to hell and for every loss you are in hell. You’re not awake yet.
I don’t mean awake in a Buddhist sense…
I’m an independent contractor hired to test the plan and submit an upgrade to the old plan.
I have all the powers of god and Buddha … I rarely use them … that’s not my job! Understand ? I can use these powers if ANY being in existence fucks with my investigation!
We all made this together as a work of art … unfortunately, there are serious flaws.
Politics and might do not govern the real world of mankind. That is what God Does. God Handles ALL affairs. The king/president/politician has no power. It only looks as though he has. You only die when God Wants you to die and in the manner that God Wants you to die. Again, if one genuinely believes God or Existence to be Perfect, they will not think it a wise/rational/beneficial/good move to allow themselves to be oppressed by an unjust tyrannical king. They’d rather die and dying is certainly better for them than giving in to an oppressor or tyrant. Dying is certainly better for them than sacrificing the serving of God/Perfection.
If you are exposed to a given battle, or a battle comes along, in my opinion, you are obliged to fight it. It is cowardice or laziness to turn away. If you are alone in some place and ten men surround you demanding that you kill x in order to live, or to say God does not exist (anything that you think amounts to them as being oppressors or tyrants in relation to you), you are supposed to tell them no and then do your best to overcome them. It does not matter if you die or not. What matters is that you are no coward or lazy individual. What matters is that you did not cease in serving God (a perfect existence). Only in an imperfect existence would you be rewarded by being better off as a result of cowardly yielding to oppressive men. I am not saying go to North Korea and demand change. It may be that they are happy with their way of life. They are not your family. They are not your nation and you do not clearly know if they are being oppressed. But I am saying that in your country, if you think there is oppression, you take appropriate and adequate steps in first verifying it, and then dealing with it. Like Abraham did with his community of idol worshipers.
You have not seen what I’ve seen and I have not seen what you have seen. When I say to you that God handles all affair to the last atom’s weight, I am talking about what my empirical experiences have greatly implied. But again, empirical experiences are open to interpretation. Pure reason is not. Per the dictates of pure reason, God Handless all affairs, to the last atom’s weight. It is not them and what they threaten you with that you should fear or serve. It is God.
I did not say that I don’t know. I said IF YOU don’t know.
No I wouldn’t. When Existence/God Is Perfect, would you teach your child to serve other than God?
I’m given these powers to investigate the plan, not to remote control people as I see fit.
Sure, I have the power to make us all take our clothes off and fuck people…
That’s not why I’m here. Understand?
We’re in a zero sum reality. Most the things we talk about have no importance at all, they’re just laws made by spirit. Spirit can change those laws.
Certain things can’t be changed, but 1 is everything and 2 is 1 etc… I mean, you can fuck with number theory… but the core problem is that all lives will be sent to hell by our current standards and plan.
So, you can talk shit to me… that’s fine… that’s just part of my job. If you kill me, I will come back and send you to hell. Normally I just control people to not kill me…
You really don’t get it man… we all made this together.
I feel like that statement just lowered this entire conversation down to a primary school level.
I see what you just said as being analogous to saying, “It isn’t arithmetic that determines the outcome in the real world of 2+2=4. That is what maths does. It is maths that handles ALL equations.”
You are dividing the man from the hand and the world from Existence. It reminds me of that story of the man out in the ocean hanging onto a sinking boat praying to God to save him. A helicopter flies over and drops a ladder to the man to which he replies, “No. Go away. My God will save me.” The helicopter flies away only to return a little latter once again offering a rope ladder for the man to climb onto. Again the man insists that they go away. “My God will save me” he cries. Of course the man eventually drowns.
As you have said before, God is ALL existence. And that includes politics and men with guns. Are you going to tell the man aiming a gun at you that he and what he wants is irrelevant to you because it is ALL up to God not him?. Are you going to drowned also?
Ignoring the obvious force at hand is ignoring a very critically important part of God. You said it yourself - God is handling ALL affairs - including that politician manipulating you and that gun pointing at you.
Are you going to say, “It wasn’t me. It was my hand”? Or perhaps “It wasn’t my bullet that killed the man. It was his fault for not dealing with it better”?
Trying to divide a part from the whole, especially within a principle, is blame-shifting - almost the definition of Satanism.
So let’s stay away from this “ignore the obvious reality of the situation and just pray to God” routine. I don’t like getting into religion. Politics and men with guns do - by God’s authority - govern the real world. It is that way because God made it that way. That is why people use those things - they work in the real world. Ignore it and you are ignoring the hand of God as if God was saying, “Ignore my hand and just go where I push you.”
Those are the actions of a misguided despot - foolishly brave. No general in any army would be no foolish - more than once.
Except that in reality you did exactly that.
No more about God. We can accept for now that God represents “all existence” and saying to consult and attend to “all existence” is a non-starter void of any path to answering the question because it is “all existence” that has shown to require at least a certain ignoring of truth.
The only question at all is how much Truth/God/Existence is to be ignored.
Where God or Existence Is Perfect, no truth should be ignored because all truths are glorious/perfection. For any given subject, some truths should have priority over others. For example, for a maths teacher, there will be truths with regards to how he can be a good maths teacher. He should pursue such truths. If truths about how to be a good vet are revealed to him, they are irrelevant to him, so he does no wrong in ignoring such truths. But when we talk about God and morality, no truths should be ignored by any subject.
I’m glad you have chosen to explain why you feel this way, rather than just say what you feel. Though I think it would have been better of you and therefore better for you to wait for me to reply to you before making such feelings known. I think your analogy has a problem:
God Is God/Perfect and maths is maths. Maths does not handle anything. God Handles ALL affairs, because God Is God/Perfect. See the difference? When a given matter is clearly in relation to God (such as whom one should serve, fear, or who really has power), bringing math into the equation really does nothing does it?
If the man sought help from God or if he simply wanted to be saved, and he ignored the ladder as you say, then that man is absurd. He says he wants to be saved, yet he acts in a totally different manner. This is completely different to a woman who is minding her own business, and then ten men surround her demanding that she yields to them. God has put her in that circumstance. This cannot be denied. The circumstance will reveal the truth about her (and it has already revealed much truth about the other men). Is it the men that she serves or is it God? If she refuses to yield to the men, then in this instance she has not served or yielded to evil in any way. If she yields to the men (despite preferring not to), she has served evil in some way. If she happily and willingly yields to the men whilst believing the men to be rapists and tyrants, then odds are she is the kind of evil you think is not going to repent that is destined for potent suffering (Hell is the best word I know that semantically conveys this perfection/truth)
I believe there are ‘adults’ who would suggest that it is naive to be so potently in opposition to yielding to evil. I think such individuals to be naive with regards to what it is to exist well. They are the kind of individuals who would seek refuge in other than God when testing times present themselves. They are the kind of ‘adults’ who would betray God whilst claiming to have done so in the name of God. They would knowingly serve imperfection and claim it was perfection. I think children are probably more admirable than such individuals because you can attribute more innocence to them. These ‘adults’ view themselves as adults and view themselves as mature in their reasoning. They think they are wise, whereas In truth/reality, they are naive and immature. They are the sort of individuals that make you cringe if you have a good sense of what good/perfection is. Knowing God/Existence Is Perfect and that everyone (which obviously includes them) will get what they truly deserve is an immensely satisfying fundamental truth. Truths about the fundamentals of Reality should not be ignored.
If I kill the man with intent, then it was the Will of God that I killed the man with intent. I am responsible for this act, as is God. It may be the case that I am evil for committing this act, but it is certainly the case that God Is Perfect fo Willing such an occurrence. If the man was a coward and chose to persist in being a coward during this process instead of committing to God, then that is responsible for his cowardice. His is certainly at fault. If he refused to be a coward during the process, then he was not at fault. The man will die. This is guaranteed. Whether he does so as one sincere to God, or as one insincere to God, is another matter. What idiot would call yielding to evil or pleading with evil as a form of existing well?! In any case, any individual that suffers, does so because he/she is evil in some way. So if an individual suffers, it is always because he was not fair in his dealings with God/Existence.
This is a matter of pure reason. Your question has an objective answer to it. Existence Is Perfect, therefore people should treat it as such. To me, what you write suggests that we should treat Existence/God as other than Perfect. If this is what you genuinely believe, what you believe is both absurd and evil. Evil in that you are unfair to God. Again, IF this is what you believe.
See all the above, specifically the following: I believe there are ‘adults’ who would suggest that it is naive to be so potently in opposition to yielding to evil. I think such individuals to be both naive and insincere with regards to what it is to exist well, and then tell me if you still believe that there are instances where it is better for one to choose to yield to evil. If you do not believe this, then I apologise for my inaccurate interpretation of you. If you do believe this, then I think the contradiction in such a belief is clear. You are not justified in having it.
Live your life with absolute drive to bring a being who experiences all to heaven. Don’t take it for granted — and you do take it for granted. You’re not an empath for god, you just think about yourself and what god can do for you. God has feelings too, not just you.
God Is Perfect and Will not compromise on Its Godliness/Perfectness. I want to see/understand as much of It as I can. I cannot get what I want independently of God. If I act as though God is imperfect, I will never get what I want. I will never get what’s best for me. Not even close.
I started typing a long message as a reply to this, but decided to erase it and say to you that, again, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You take lots for granted. Everyone’s perfection is different, just like everyone’s biochemistry is different. You are still so incredibly narcissistic that you believe in the one perfection.
Again, look up strange loops and holograms… everyone can be the creator individually without violating anyone’s consent.
I’m submitting a new plan for existence… you’re still stuck doing apologetics for the current plan. You’re delusional.
If you have good leaders, you don’t NEED to be interested (much less learn) the real “truth” of what goes on behind the scenes… You can let someone else steer the ship as you adopt a different role and concern yourself with different things, like raising children or practicing medicine etc.
But when the person steering the ship is steering it into an iceberg, well… this misplaced “trust” or believing their lies about where you are headed, will result in your death or worse, immiseration.
Yeah but if history is any indication, this development is not going to be good for us.
The loss of truth, is going to ensure we run face first into reality and get smack us upside the head…
Describing reality is what makes something true. You might delude yourself, prefer the comfort of a lie etc…
But, while you can avoid the truth, there’s no escaping reality…
The truth does not have to be favorable to be useful. Knowing the shitstorm that I’m in allows me, if nothing else, to endeavour to escape from it and possibly succeed.
Authoritarian regimes spring up all the time, but they also reliably collapse… People can only tolerate running into a wall for so long before they feel the need to course correct.
If by “real truth” you mean know everything there is to know… that’s trivially true, we’ve never been omniscient.
But not everything is built on lies.
Reality does not give a fuck what you believe or how many people you can get to believe it…
Consequently, to succeed at anything, you gotta navigate reality.
