Purpose Of Life
- Thread starter china
- Start date
Eloquent to say the least....
Can we assume therefore that we come with complete availability and natural propensity to hatred?
The ironic thing about all of Krishnamurti's teachings are that he is essentially trying to say that in order to arrive at spiritual truth you must abandon teachings. But somehow I am supposed to learn that from his teachings. In the exact way that Krishnamurti states, "If you think it is wrong, leave it alone and go your own sweet way," I thought about his words and decided they carry no more enlightenment for me than Joseph Ratzinger's, so I defaulted to what he was trying to say anyways and my life has been good since I abandoned religion.
Niflmir
Christianity and all major religions are in the business of "religion". Suggesting that you ignore your bible or your koran etc. would cut into the propaganda machinery....
The philosophy I use personally argues the same point.....if you listen to someone who's "teaching" you about "religion", or if someone offers their "insight" as the ultimate belief construct....run away run away!
Once religion can be set aside spirituality can grow.
Christianity and all major religions are in the business of "religion". Suggesting that you ignore your bible or your koran etc. would cut into the propaganda machinery....
The philosophy I use personally argues the same point.....if you listen to someone who's "teaching" you about "religion", or if someone offers their "insight" as the ultimate belief construct....run away run away!
Once religion can be set aside spirituality can grow.
Depends on what you mean. I don't make a very good Calvinist if that's what you're asking but I'm not opposed to giving some pragmatic milage to a cautious dualism. Let me put it this way. Evil is just as real as good. I think that answers your question.
Isn't that like saying happiness is just as real as sorrow? Doesn't it depict a frame of mind in any given moment?
you mean it isn't?
not exclusively, but if you want to strip the humanity out of the human experience, be my guest.
To me labelling things as definitely good or evil is stripping the humanity out of human experience. Killing your own babies isn't evil for a shark, morality is a relative beast. Evil and good are objectivist constructions with no real grounding outside of our relative experience.
Sorry mate, you have obviously misunderstood me since in summary I said:
So I think we are on the same page.
I'm not the one putting labels on things. I was just answering a question. If that comes at the cost of being distracted next time I'll just say "I don't know". It won't change anything.
and please, if you can't kick it in the shin its not even an Empiricist construct, let alone Objectivist.
true in a lot of ways, which is why I put love so high in the pecking order. It avoids nihilism.
Bitwhys
When you kick something in the shin....is that "objective"?
I'm confused here.... (situation normal)...
If I can experience something....that's subjective....
If you can experience something....that looks and feels or seems to exhibit all the same qualia as my experience...then that's an "objective" reality?
I have only slight tactile sense on the left side of my body, so I could pick up a red hot ember from a fire and claim that glowing embers from a fire aren't hot at all..... (once the sizzle had stopped and the stench disappears..... while somone else trying the same thing would tell me that I'm nuts....
Is that glowing ember (an empirical "reality") actually hot or is it only "hot" to somone who can feel "hot"?
I think that morality exists in the non-empirical and that "right" and "wrong" are relative and subjective as opposed to absolute and objective....
Where's my mistake....?
When you kick something in the shin....is that "objective"?
I'm confused here.... (situation normal)...
If I can experience something....that's subjective....
If you can experience something....that looks and feels or seems to exhibit all the same qualia as my experience...then that's an "objective" reality?
I have only slight tactile sense on the left side of my body, so I could pick up a red hot ember from a fire and claim that glowing embers from a fire aren't hot at all..... (once the sizzle had stopped and the stench disappears..... while somone else trying the same thing would tell me that I'm nuts....
Is that glowing ember (an empirical "reality") actually hot or is it only "hot" to somone who can feel "hot"?
I think that morality exists in the non-empirical and that "right" and "wrong" are relative and subjective as opposed to absolute and objective....
Where's my mistake....?
Unlike many other things, objective morality has the bizarre property that if you cannot know what your moral obligations are they cannot exist. So any objective morality must have clear axioms, but when you read this axioms (or somebody states them to you) you must judge them to be morally correct otherwise you are just blindly following something, which means that you already must have known them. Thus objective morality requires prescience, and I have no problem in flat out asserting that prescience is a fantasy.
What's that got to do with what I said? My point was that good and evil are not "objectivist constructs". I don't have to prove the reality represented by Objectivism for that to be true.
your mistake? thinking I want to rescue you from a loveless world by arguing philosophy. that's your mistake. I've got more important things to do with my time.
On Edit: added text
Last edited: