I get very mad when people suck up to the great consent violator in the sky with seeming kindness in what most perceive an innocuous way. I was sent to hell by beings like this. For no reason.
And then in walks zinnat, seemingly the kindest ILPer…
Like I said, I don’t expect people to understand what I’ve been through.
Appearances are very deceiving. The wolf in sheep’s clothing. I get it. I shouldn’t say that theists are flaming assholes. I had to deal with billions of zinnats in hell. This glib shit is not fun to endure. I haven’t healed from hell yet.
Anyways, I’ll say a bit and then go to Buddhism again.
Spirits exist. Hell exists. God doesn’t exist. Empaths don’t have a heaven if even a single being in existence is having their consent violated, which means heaven doesn’t exist either, if the Buddha is not a psychopath, “nirvana” is not heaven.
From my own frame of mind I’m thinking: What does your response here have to do with that which I would like to focus on in discussing Buddhism: connecting the dots between the behaviors a committed Buddhist chooses in a particular context involving conflicting goods as that relates to his or her understanding of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana. Given a context most here are likely to be familiar with.
I’m simply asking you to focus in on a context involving conflicting goods that are of particular importance to you. How are the behaviors that you choose related to the manner in which you have come to acquire particular moral and political values, relating to how you connect the behaviors that you do choose to that which you imagine the fate of “I” to be beyond the grave. Then to explore how a Buddhist might react to that. Then to shift the discussion from that which we believe is true to that which anyone of us is able to demonstrate that others should believe in turn. Why? Because what we believe to be true in our head is able to be demonstrated as in fact true for all reasonable men and women.
As for this…
…I’ll leave it to others to decide for themselves the difference between the long and the short version of “I” as an existential contraption intertwined in philosophy.
My main point being that suppose, for whatever reason as a child, circumstances resulted in your being raised by radical left wing parents who were atheists instead. Your experiences were very different and you found yourself embracing moral and political values quite the opposite of the ones you embody now.
Given this what might philosophers/ethicists be able to tell us about value judgments that attempt to take these diverse existential paths into account in order to derive the most rational set of moral and political values. The optimal intertwining of genes and memes so that in regard to an issue like vaccines, it really would be possible to embody true wisdom in the choices one makes.
This thread merely shifts that discussion to one in which God and religion become an important factor in connecting the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then.
I’m not arguing that my point of view here makes more sense than yours does. I am only pointing out that we think about these relationships in very different ways. Maybe the gap can be closed, maybe not. In part because I have come to construe identity here as basically an existential manifestation of what I have come to understand as the embodiment of the “psychology of objectivism”.
It’s not what moral and political objectivists believe is the right or the wrong thing to do, but that they have convinced themselves that it must be either one or the other.
It’s not what moral and political objectivists believe is the right or the wrong thing to do, but that they have convinced themselves that it must be either one or the other.
[/quote]
‘They’ have for sure, but their conviction may not be absolutely convincing, where even a scintilla of difference may not disqualify them from either / or ; and/or both views.
It is that micro difference which carries an overwhelming weight .
Their opinion could be compared to the difference between the visible part of an observable ice berg above , or the insurmountable part below.
In Buddhic estimation, that perspective could be multiples million fold.
"don’t get Buddhism either. But I don’t get you even more. And no one gets me most of all.
Except You have repeatedly expressed that sentiment about Buddhism and Meno, yet Meno has never once expressed in any way, shape or form not to understand Iambiguous.
So the 3 way correspondence is more difficult by powers far exceeding X3.
Morality here and now. Immortality there and then. There’s how a particular Buddhist understands this relationship given his or her day to day interactions with others in a world bursting with conflicting goods.
There’s how “I” understand it.
There’s how you understand it.
But it only makes sense [to me] to discuss this relationship given a set of circumstances that most here are likely to be familiar with.
Let’s try to imagine the reaction of Adolph, Benito, Joseph, Pol, Jung Il, Vladimir [both of them] and Donald to that.
And then the manner in which Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Scientologists, Rastafaris and all the rest of the religious denominations react to their reactions.