[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 101 KB, 718x960, 7moh4pdjki541.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14825157 No.14825157 [Reply] [Original]

I didn't used to read but was recommended Meditations and after reading that I went deep down the Stoic rabbit hole. During that time I improved myself greatly and felt that I experienced a total inner conversion where I felt total harmony and peace + happiness whenever.

After this I looked more into philosophy because of how much I enjoyed stoic stuff and because I'm either a pseud or dumber I have found all of the subsequent stuff has gotten me off the path and made me question everything really. I stopped acting well because of a kind of 'whats the point' nihilist attitude and now don't know if I can get back to being a good person without appeal to a higher being or some shit. My diary desu

So long story short I want the opinions of people on a chinese weaving forum about paths that can be taken to achieve that inner peace and that give a strong foundation for being a good person.

>> No.14825169

And also books that help me get there

>> No.14825172

Being a good person unironically makes you a happier person
also re-read Papa Aurelius

>> No.14825187

People will tell you to read the bible. I'd say get back into stoicism, I'm sure there's a lot more for you to read, preferably from the greats themselves and not hacks like Ryan Holiday who just want to sell you their coins and shit. But by far the best advice I can give you is to leave this website and never return, it's full of degenerate, immoral losers who will only ever drag you down and make you feel like shit whilst wasting your time.

>> No.14825203

>>14825172
>>14825187
Ty ty for advice. I won't bother waiting for more replies I will just begin on the Stoic path. I won't return (hopefully, only go on /lit/ when I'm being a human slug anyway really). Hopefully you take your own advice as well if it would help you (don't want that to sound preachy I just know the advice I give others is shit that would help me too). Goodluck bros and hope you have good lives.

>> No.14825220

>>14825157
Stoicism is a cope, Nietzsche is what you need.

>> No.14825299

>>14825220
Yeah if you want to kill yourself.

>> No.14825432

>>14825203
Sounds like a good plan

andyou too anon, you too

>> No.14825455

>>14825157
Same thing happened to me. For about a week I felt strong bursts of peace, like “yes, this is the key,” but it went away quickly. Then I read Pensées, and I became a Christian, and the happiness has never left me.

>> No.14825493

You can just enjoy creation you know, instead of trying to live up to some arbitrary standard:

https://realization.org/p/ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita.html

How do you even define 'good person', or know that you want to be one?

>> No.14825612

>>14825157
Become Christian. Go to church. Nothing you read will help. You need to be in a real community to put wisdom into practice. The stoics were a school of people not randos handing out pamphlets then going home.

>> No.14825617

>>14825455
How much do I need to know about Christianity to "get" Pensées?

For some background. Where I'm from most of our population are Lutheran, but only because we are born into it and don't bother leaving the church since most people want church wedding and funerals, it's traditional. Majority of the members of the church don't even believe in God or nothing.

So my knowledge about Christianity isn't all that great, I know just the basics. But I've been trying to awaken my spiritual side recently. Picked up the Bible and I've been reading it, I also picked up some of C.S Lewis' Christian literature, Mere Christianity and Abolition of a Man, and I've been going through those slowly.

I'm still struggling to grasp it all, it's a lot to take in, but maybe Pensées is what I need? Any other suggestions?

>> No.14825656

>>14825617
I only read Pensées, previously having minimal exposure to the Bible. I only read it because I realized that the infamous Wager is taken out of context, so I wanted to see what Pascal really said. I always thought I couldn’t change my mind on religion, but I did.

Deuteronomy 4:29
>But from there you will seek the Lord your God and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul.
Proverbs 8:17
>I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.
Jeremiah 29:13
>You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.
Matthew 7:7-8
>Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.
Isaiah 55:6-7
>Seek the Lord while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
Lamentations 3:25
>The Lord is good to those who wait for him, to the soul who seeks him.
James 4:8
>Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded

>> No.14825667

>>14825157
The problem with Stoicism is that it’s too heavily based on self-hood, assuming that one has strong internal principles that definitively guide one to do good things, while seemingly neglecting other people and the community, who are instrumental in providing those principles. Whenever you are “self-improving”, you can never be entirely devoted to just your own virtuousness and work without reference to others, you are always doing a social act. Stoicism eventually breaks itself down when it realises that consciousness’ being in the external world and the effects from it cannot be shut out, since they form a part of consciousness itself. I would recommend reading Hegel’s PoS, and these anons:
>>14825455
>>14825612
have also given some good advice. Christianity is in a lot of ways the highest form in which self can interact with the community, via the mediation of God.

>> No.14825725

>>14825157
god i wish that baby were me

>> No.14825775

>>14825157
>I'm either a pseud or dumber I have found all of the subsequent stuff has gotten me off the path

Stoic Ethics and "modern Ethics" deal with different issues. Stoic Ethics (like other kinds of Ancient Ethics) is a giuide to life on how to make you a better and happier person. Modern Ethics deal with other issues.
Subsequent stuff doesn't "disprove" Stoicism, since it doesn't deal with the same subject matter.

>> No.14825868

>>14825612
But God isn't real, and no fedora images you post can change that. There's no evidence for it. Just in case I've been praying every night for him to give me signs and I've opened my heart to him, but nothing. Because there's nothing there. Also, Christianity is dying in the west and there are no real Christian communities either, especially in Protestant countries with gay rainbow churches like where I'm from.

>> No.14825881

>>14825868
>But God isn't real
What a bold claim. Can you prove it?
> Just in case I've been praying every night for him to give me signs and I've opened my heart to him, but nothing
When in the Bible does it ever say that you should ask for a sign? See these verses (especially the last) >>14825656

>> No.14825887

>>14825881
>What a bold claim. Can you prove it?
It's equally as bold as you claiming he does, but you don't feel a need to prove that so why should I?

>> No.14825889

>>14825220
>Stoicism is a cope, Nietzsche is what you need.
How well did things work out for Neitzsche?

>> No.14825905

>>14825887
When did I say that God exists? I believe God exists. You believe He doesn’t, while also claiming to know that as a fact.

>> No.14825913

>>14825905
Well I assumed you were one of the many people on this board who claims he does exist. I'll amend my statement to agnosticism. In any case, I have searched for him like your passages said, but I have not found him. You can always say 'ah but you haven't searched with all your heart!' but that's vague nonsense that can just be used to make your idea unfalsifiable, isn't it?

>> No.14825915

>>14825868
> There's no evidence for it

This only matters if you think things are only real if they have evidence for them. There's no evidence you have conscious awareness either.

>> No.14825927

>>14825913
Not him, but I have experienced God. Of course it's unfalsifiable, the same way it is impossible to prove that what I see when I see red is the same as what you see when you see red.

>> No.14825929

>>14825915
Nice sophistry, but we both know that there's far more reason to believe in your own consciousness than to accept a huge amount of Christian dogma about the very specifics of a God and his teachings.

>> No.14825932

>>14825913
>Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you
Avoid sin, read the Bible, pray, realize the limits of your human reason and humble yourself.

>> No.14825987

>>14825927
Describe your experience. If a ghost appeared before me right now, I wouldn't begin believing in ghosts. Why? Because it's far more likely that I was hallucinating; instead I'd go to the doctor and consider seeing a psychiatrist. Why can't your experience just be you feeling really good at that point or a coincidence or something? Isn't that more likely? Come on.

>> No.14826024

>>14825987
Christianity isn’t the same as some quickly concocted ghost tale. It’s the only religion I know that acknowledges that no man is good, that everyone is a sinner, so that good works alone is not enough to be saved. In other religions, how can we be so sure that we have done enough good works? What if we break one of the laws? Only Christianity solves this problem.

Also, Christianity is much more prophesied than other religions.
http://www.bible-codes.org/Names-Bible-Prophecy-Code.htm

https://jewsforjesus.org/answers/top-40-most-helpful-messianic-prophecies/
What other religion is like this?

And if that’s not enough, consider it from a practical point of view. Jesus says “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one may come to the Father except through me.” Yet other religions are not so exclusive. A good Christian will surely be fine if Buddhism or Hinduism or Zoroastrianism is true, because a Christian minds the wellness of his soul and is aware of the Divine. Even Islam says there are Christians in heaven (Quran 2:62), which makes Islam even more unlikely considering Christianity contradicts Islam in so many ways. And why would Muhammed’s coming suddenly make Christians unworthy of heaven? etc.

There’s much more proof out there, if you would only seek it.

>> No.14826033

>>14825929
There are no reasons to accept any particular dogma or wisdom. Accepting or rejecting these things is beyond reason .

>> No.14826055

>>14826024
The code stuff is cringe and I can't believe people unironically buy into it. We're talking boomer on facebook talking about astrology tier here. At the end you describe pascal's wager which is moderately more logical than disavowing all religions I guess, but barely. There are thousands upon thousands of religions throughout history that you'll be pissing off. And if even one of them says that being an atheist is better than being an adherent to a false God, you lose even that moderate increase in logic. It is the same as the ghost stuff, I'm afraid. It could be legit, but there are far more sensible conclusions to come to.
>>14826033
Look, I can practically feel the fedora forming on my head when I say this but it's the best way to demonstrate it: If I tell you there's a pink magical unicorn in the next room, is it more reasonable to doubt it and request to see it to confirm or to 100% blindly accept it? You can circle around this all day long talking about what 'truth' is and what we can really 'know' but we both know you're bullshitting me.

>> No.14826075

>>14825987
Of course it can be those things. I don't have to believe that they are though, since all of those are unfalsifiable propositions. There is unlimited in freedom in choosing what is real, in a lot of cases. Your entire perception of the world is already an illusion, you do not have access to noumena. And even beyond that, everyone treats all sorts of abstract concepts as if they were real, when there is no empirical evidence for them either.

As for the experience, it was something that happened shortly after reading Crime and Punishment, in which I was able to experience the suffering of both a murder victim and their murderer simultaneously. Nowadays, I can see God in everything. It's somewhat like a visual song, or like everything has an intensity, a fire to it, that they did not previously possess.

>> No.14826077
File: 16 KB, 562x182, 1580133381389.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14826077

>>14825157
>So long story short I want the opinions of people on a chinese weaving forum about paths that can be taken to achieve that inner peace and that give a strong foundation for being a good person.


Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "What is the purpose of skillful virtues? What is their reward?"

"Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda, and freedom from remorse as their reward."

"And what is the purpose of freedom from remorse? What is its reward?"

"Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward."

"And what is the purpose of joy? What is its reward?"

"Joy has rapture as its purpose, rapture as its reward."

"And what is the purpose of rapture? What is its reward?"

"Rapture has serenity as its purpose, serenity as its reward."

"And what is the purpose of serenity? What is its reward?"

"Serenity has pleasure as its purpose, pleasure as its reward."

"And what is the purpose of pleasure? What is its reward?"

"Pleasure has concentration as its purpose, concentration as its reward."

"And what is the purpose of concentration? What is its reward?"

"Concentration has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its purpose, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its reward."

"And what is the purpose of knowledge & vision of things as they actually are? What is its reward?"

"Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are has disenchantment as its purpose, disenchantment as its reward."

"And what is the purpose of disenchantment? What is its reward?"

"Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose, dispassion as its reward."

"And what is the purpose of dispassion? What is its reward?"

"Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge & vision of release as its reward.

"Thus in this way, Ananda, skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, freedom from remorse as their reward. Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward. Joy has rapture as its purpose, rapture as its reward. Rapture has serenity as its purpose, serenity as its reward. Serenity has pleasure as its purpose, pleasure as its reward. Pleasure has concentration as its purpose, concentration as its reward. Concentration has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its purpose, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its reward. Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are has disenchantment as its purpose, disenchantment as its reward. Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose, dispassion as its reward. Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge & vision of release as its reward.

"In this way, Ananda, skillful virtues lead step-by-step to the consummation of arahantship."

>> No.14826078

>>14826055
>There are thousands upon thousands of religions throughout history that you'll be pissing off
Those gods shouldn’t be mad at you for not believing when you don’t know about them. Your best bet is to be a good Christian, and even if all those old religions about good works are true, then you still have a good chance. Even if Christianity isn’t 99% likely, it still seems the MOST likely, or at least the most practical.
> And if even one of them says that being an atheist is better than being an adherent to a false God
If there is a god that punishes people for false beliefs, then we’re all going to hell, because we’ve all at some point believed something that wasn’t true. Having no faith at all is a death sentence. We can’t know anything for certain. Also, the fact that atheists are usually more depressed and more likely to be nihilistic or suicidal seems to indicate that we don’t live in a world of an atheist-favoring God.

>> No.14826086
File: 16 KB, 578x433, 5515970D-1176-43DE-8F36-8B3D25B368AC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14826086

>>14826077
>"And what is the purpose of pleasure? What is its reward?"
>"Pleasure has concentration as its purpose, concentration as its reward."

>> No.14826099

>>14826055
That can quickly be empirically verified. Seeing God is more like rotating a kaleidoscope, the realization that your perception of the world does not have to be the same as it always was, because it was always an illusion anyway. You don't see atoms, you don't see the full EM spectrum, and don't even get me started on quantum phenomena. The map is not the territory, and with a different map, you can reach God.

>> No.14826232

>>14826075
>There is unlimited in freedom in choosing what is real, in a lot of cases.
There it is. You're no different than trannies who choose to believe they're the opposite gender. Feels before reals. You're right, though, I legitimately want to be religious so I can be comforted by it and not fear death. But I just can't do it, I'm unironically too intelligent for that.
>>14826099
It makes perfect sense to say there MAY be a God, and that Christianity MAY be true. But saying 'yep, it's all true' makes no sense. There are good, logical arguments for believing in the existence of things like atoms and it's completely different to accepting Christianity as true.

>> No.14826266
File: 48 KB, 750x299, A6FB529F-5C6D-4B62-A864-7935A74A4C80.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14826266

>>14826232
>But I just can't do it, I'm unironically too intelligent for that.
No, your pride is just too great

>> No.14826277

>>14826232
>It makes perfect sense to say there MAY be a God, and that Christianity MAY be true. But saying 'yep, it's all true' makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense that your food may be free of poisons and harmful drugs. But you don’t know if it’s true, so you shouldn’t eat, and starve yourself to death.

>> No.14826328

>>14826266
I don't know what that means since I'm not an American. I'll assume it's impressive, but it just proves to me that people can be very intelligent in some ways but very stupid in other ways. No offense. It's simple illogical to believe in God. I imagine they ask some logical questions on this test; imagine if you answered them using the same logic as you do for your worldview. You wouldn't, as you know it'd be wrong.
>>14826277
Ironically you've just made a great argument against your views. The chances of it being poisoned is incredibly low and there'd be no reason to believe that would be the case, even though it's technically possible. Believing in God is like being convinced your food is poisoned despite no reason to believe that. You'd rightfully be referred to a psychiatrist if you had such irrational beliefs.

>> No.14826330

Stoicism is gulag mentality. Disgusting way to spend your finite time on earth. You don't endure tyranny, you fight. Smith & Wesson > Seneca & Epictetus .

Language of the gun is most honorable. - Ernst Junger.

>> No.14826415

>>14826328
>It's simple illogical to believe in God
It’s only illogical for you in your present condition. Have you ever been wrong? Has “reason” ever failed you? It’s possible to reason as best you can, and still be wrong. We’re human, after all.
> I imagine they ask some logical questions on this test; imagine if you answered them using the same logic as you do for your worldview. You wouldn't, as you know it'd be wrong.
What faulty logic are you referring to?
> Ironically you've just made a great argument against your views. The chances of it being poisoned is incredibly low and there'd be no reason to believe that would be the case, even though it's technically possible. Believing in God is like being convinced your food is poisoned despite no reason to believe that. You'd rightfully be referred to a psychiatrist if you had such irrational beliefs.
Experience tells us our food probably isn’t poisoned, but it’s still possible. You didn’t admit it, but you have faith that your food is safe to eat. That faith is backed by experience and reason, just like religious faith. We theists have our own experiences, and through searching around, we find evidence that gives us reason to believe, as well as practical reasons. Either it was you or some other anon that completely ignored much of this evidence when I posted it >>14826024
But I guess when you think you’re too intelligent to change your mind, as if it’s impossible for you to be deceived, as you’ve doubtlessly been deceived before, even when you know of Socrates’ famous statement,”I know that I know nothing,” alluding to his awareness of his own ignorance, which makes him wise, even with all this, you still think yourself right, and that makes sense, when you’re filled with pride.

>> No.14826509

>>14826330
Says the man posting on a vietmanese basketweaving forum. Post body btw if you are so tough

>> No.14826557

>>14826232
You haven't thought about death much if you still fear it. Worst case scenario, there is nothing, but you already came from nothing at least once.

> feels before reals
Yes, that's how humans work. Even your very notion of empiricism being the ultimate word on truth is feels before reals, for you have to make a non-empirical judgement on what matters first, to reach the conclusion that empiricism is most important. Or are you saying 'science and logic are the only sources of truth' is something proven by physics?

>> No.14826565

>>14826415
>It’s only illogical for you in your present condition. Have you ever been wrong? Has “reason” ever failed you? It’s possible to reason as best you can, and still be wrong. We’re human, after all.
So because logic and reason can occasionally lead you to a bad situation (such as assuming that your food hasn't been tampered with), you should throw it out entirely and just live life like a maniac who believes everything is possible and all logic must be thrown out the window? I must be careful opening my door today, for it could turn into a giant spider and eat me, I can't assume it won't as logic can be wrong! Right, I'm on my commute to work now. Hold on, it's possible that I've never had a job and it's all a scheme by Chinese spies to end the world. No evidence for it, but it could be the case and logic is invalid, so I won't go in today. You cannot think like this.
>What faulty logic are you referring to?
'There's no direct evidence against this thing, so I'm going to wholeheartedly believe in it'. Just imagine a simple logic problem that's supposed to prove the problems with inductive reasoning like my dog has a brown nose, it is a dog, therefore all dogs have brown noses. Would you use this sort of bullshit there and say 'Hmm well ACTUALLY we don't know if over night all dogs had their noses become brown. Or if evil logic had mislead us all this time and we perceived brown as something else. So actually yes this statement is 100% true for sure no doubt whatsoever, I bet my life on it!' In any academic case, you would never act like this because you know you'd rightfully get marked down for such bullshit logic.
>Experience tells us our food probably isn’t poisoned, but it’s still possible. You didn’t admit it, but you have faith that your food is safe to eat.
It's not faith, it's a calculated risk based on logic and reason. With God there's no logic or reason involved at all. It COULD be poisoned, it would be mental to decide to believe it WAS poisoned simply because it's possible.
>But I guess when you think you’re too intelligent to change your mind, as if it’s impossible for you to be deceived, as you’ve doubtlessly been deceived before, even when you know of Socrates’ famous statement,”I know that I know nothing,” alluding to his awareness of his own ignorance, which makes him wise, even with all this, you still think yourself right, and that makes sense, when you’re filled with pride
This would be a valid criticism if I said outright that God isn't real, which I facetiously did earlier but conceded that in reality I hold an agnostic view. He could exist. But there's no reason to commit to the belief he does. None.

>> No.14826594

>>14826557
>You haven't thought about death much if you still fear it. Worst case scenario, there is nothing, but you already came from nothing at least once.
There's still a dread when I think of it. I want to live forever. If you want to get into semantics I suppose I could be fearing the moment of death or the knowledge I'll die soon, etc.
>Yes, that's how humans work. Even your very notion of empiricism being the ultimate word on truth is feels before reals, for you have to make a non-empirical judgement on what matters first, to reach the conclusion that empiricism is most important. Or are you saying 'science and logic are the only sources of truth' is something proven by physics?
Again, you have to be reasonable and there's no way you apply this same logic to your every day life, abandoning all logic and seriously considering every crazy conspiracy theory or random thought about a pink unicorn being in the next room or whatever it may be. Even if some faulty logic is applied in the first place, that's no reason to go the whole hog and apply it to absolutely everything. You've simply made an exception and deluded yourself into believing in God to feel better. I wish I could do the same.

>> No.14826663

>>14826565
>This would be a valid criticism if I said outright that God isn't real, which I facetiously did earlier but conceded that in reality I hold an agnostic view. He could exist. But there's no reason to commit to the belief he does. None.
Then why did you say you were too intelligent to believe?
> So because logic and reason can occasionally lead you to a bad situation
What you call logic and reason are products of the faulty human mind. There is a true Logic out there, but we don’t always have access to it. Humans must have faith to survive.
> 'There's no direct evidence against this thing, so I'm going to wholeheartedly believe in it
What’s wrong with that? What do you think the purpose of belief is?
> Would you use this sort of bullshit there and say 'Hmm well ACTUALLY we don't know if over night all dogs had their noses become brown.
It’s possible that all dogs’ noses suddenly become brown but the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise and that’s why the logic is flawed. You still haven’t pointed out any specific faulty logic I’ve supposedly been using.

>> No.14826674

>>14826594
>I wish I could do the same.
If that were true, you would be reading theological works and trying your best to seek God. Maybe you don’t know this, but God doesn’t like pride. You can’t expect to become a believer with the way you’ve been talking. It’s all an argument to you, something that can be won or lost, not a quest for truth

>> No.14826696

>>14826663
>Then why did you say you were too intelligent to believe?
I'm also too intelligent to believe there definitely isn't a God. Either way is foolish.
>What you call logic and reason are products of the faulty human mind. There is a true Logic out there, but we don’t always have access to it. Humans must have faith to survive.
If I choose to believe, right now, that everyone in the world is being mind controlled by Tom Cruise and it is up to me alone to be your saviour, what do you think about that? Am I being stupid, or equally as rational to you? If the former, you're a hypocrite. If the latter, it's sad that you have such low standards for yourself.
>It’s possible that all dogs’ noses suddenly become brown but the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise and that’s why the logic is flawed.
Your logic is this:
The Christian god may exist,
Therefore the Christian god does exist and I will devote my life to this truth.
>>14826674
I was hoping you people might be able to provide some enlightenment but you're quite literally just saying 'believe whatever you want bro nothing is real lmao'. I'll continue to pray to God for now, and he will most likely continue to ignore me on account of him likely not existing.

>> No.14826744

>>14826696
>Therefore the Christian god does exist
I never said that. I thought you were intelligent

>> No.14826779

>>14825220
Not a cope. You are wrong. It’s the hard way.

>> No.14826852

>>14826565
> He could exist. But there's no reason to commit to the belief he does. None.

You are correct. Believe in God is not arrived at by reason, but by direct experience. This is as close as reason can take you:

https://www.nature.com/articles/436029a

>> No.14826901

>>14826594
What I do is recognize all bodily sensations as transient and illusory. Hint: the reason you conclude empiricism is the only truth is because it produces a certain bodily sensation in you, and because considering the alternative produces a different bodily sensation that you label as undesirable. If you were truly, completely rational and non-emotional, you would not have a strong attachment to empiricism, and everything, life, death, pain, being a fool, would only result in your indifference.

>> No.14827083

>>14826744
>I never said that.
So you're devoting your life to God when you don't even believe he exists? Bizarre.
>>14826852
>>14826901
I'll always follow reason and logic, or the closest I can get to it. Yeah, yeah - you claim that I require some level of faith to even trust reason, but even if I agreed with that, I still wish to limit the amount of logical leaps I take as much as possible. Having 'faith' in science is far more sensible than having 'faith' in any random nonsense such as the paranormal/religion. And I'll state it again - you agree with me, no doubt. In every part of your life, you act like I do. When you get out of bed in the morning, you reason that the laws of physics still apply. When you have to make a difficult decision, you'll use deductive reason and logic wherever possible. When asked on a academic or work-related test to figure out a logical problem, you'll think like me. There's only one area in which you'll suddenly change your way of thinking, and that's religion. Because it's a giant cope... it's comforting to believe. And whilst I believe I'm thinking much more clearly than you, I do envy your ability to suppress your natural 'god-given' intelligence.

>> No.14827145

>>14827083
>So you're devoting your life to God when you don't even believe he exists? Bizarre.
>still doesn’t understand the difference between believing in God and claiming that God exists
>calls himself intelligent

>> No.14827202

>>14827083
Actually, as a software developer, every decision I make is ultimately a judgement call, which means, I go with what gives me certain sensations which I label as pleasant. There are no objective metrics in my field.

Also, did you read the essay I linked? And also, why fear death at all? If all you are is atoms now, you will still be atoms after death. Hell, even the judgement 'this is alive, this is not alive' is not founded on anything in physics. You are already making an irrational labeling there.

>> No.14827218

>>14827083
What is intelligence and what is its ultimate purpose?

>> No.14827225

>>14826328
Read Hegel dumbass

>> No.14827230

>>14827225
Too long. Summarize it for me.

>> No.14827373

>>14825157
You desire to LIVE "according to Nature"? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power—how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live—is not that just endeavouring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, "living according to Nature," means actually the same as "living according to life"—how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature "according to the Stoa," and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise—and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves—Stoicism is self-tyranny—Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature?... But this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to "creation of the world," the will to the causa prima.