Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Brass Tacks
MindGate
United States Veteran
I've been wanting to write a book for a long time. Not a novel, but a book on philosophy, per se. I want to write a book on what makes sense to me, on comprehending this seemingly incomprehensible world. I just sat down and wrote a rough beginning. These is just some ideas that popped in my head... I'm sure to change these later. Just want some feedback. 
Tucked away in a meek, obscure part of this expansive and elegant universe, here we stand. A blue marble slightly different from the rest orbiting around an average star; we call it home. It is Earth, home to a myriad of beings, big and small, living and dead. We appeared from the unforgiving, cold, lonely cosmos, being capable of emotion, being able to be alive. We are capable of extraordinary things, yet, we, in this vast frontier full of wonder, are preoccupied with our little humdrum lives. We are hell-bent on obtaining fame, fortune, sex, money and even killing each other.
Some, though, have strived towards what is seemingly impossible to reach: what is beyond our simple little lives? They’ve spent their whole lives on a conquest to understand what seems to be unexplainable. Alas, I am not one of these people. I don’t see how a person could spend their, perhaps only, life devoted to only the search of the truth if the truth may not even be out there. I do respect these people, though, but all I can push myself to do is sit in bed at night pondering the wonders of reality.
Despite the fact that I will not become a monk, priest or traveling philosopher, I cannot understand how people just live their lives day to day without even trying to comprehend the world around them. They either just take whatever is taught to them as a child without even the slightest question as the truth or they just flat out do not care. They live their lives day after day not wondering why they are here, how they got here, and if they do, they do nothing about it except try to shoo away this fleeting thought.
Some people blindly follow what is told to them like a sheep following the leader sheep right off the cliff. A part of the world, though, strives for the truth in their own way by following their own path. Some people attempt to understand the workings of reality not just by following their spiritual teachers, but questioning them too. Others depend on science for all the answers. Some take it upon themselves to directly experience the truth while other claim there is no truth to experience. But do we know or will we ever know the truth absolutely and indefinitely? Maybe, maybe not.
What is the truth? What makes us happy or what makes sense? I lean towards what makes sense; and if that makes me happy too, then good for me. The truth, if there is one to comprehend, doesn’t exist whether we want it to or not, it’s beyond us. It’s something we have to experience, something we can reason out and have proof for. We can’t just have faith in something because we want it to be true, we have to have faith in something because it is true.
Tucked away in a meek, obscure part of this expansive and elegant universe, here we stand. A blue marble slightly different from the rest orbiting around an average star; we call it home. It is Earth, home to a myriad of beings, big and small, living and dead. We appeared from the unforgiving, cold, lonely cosmos, being capable of emotion, being able to be alive. We are capable of extraordinary things, yet, we, in this vast frontier full of wonder, are preoccupied with our little humdrum lives. We are hell-bent on obtaining fame, fortune, sex, money and even killing each other.
Some, though, have strived towards what is seemingly impossible to reach: what is beyond our simple little lives? They’ve spent their whole lives on a conquest to understand what seems to be unexplainable. Alas, I am not one of these people. I don’t see how a person could spend their, perhaps only, life devoted to only the search of the truth if the truth may not even be out there. I do respect these people, though, but all I can push myself to do is sit in bed at night pondering the wonders of reality.
Despite the fact that I will not become a monk, priest or traveling philosopher, I cannot understand how people just live their lives day to day without even trying to comprehend the world around them. They either just take whatever is taught to them as a child without even the slightest question as the truth or they just flat out do not care. They live their lives day after day not wondering why they are here, how they got here, and if they do, they do nothing about it except try to shoo away this fleeting thought.
Some people blindly follow what is told to them like a sheep following the leader sheep right off the cliff. A part of the world, though, strives for the truth in their own way by following their own path. Some people attempt to understand the workings of reality not just by following their spiritual teachers, but questioning them too. Others depend on science for all the answers. Some take it upon themselves to directly experience the truth while other claim there is no truth to experience. But do we know or will we ever know the truth absolutely and indefinitely? Maybe, maybe not.
What is the truth? What makes us happy or what makes sense? I lean towards what makes sense; and if that makes me happy too, then good for me. The truth, if there is one to comprehend, doesn’t exist whether we want it to or not, it’s beyond us. It’s something we have to experience, something we can reason out and have proof for. We can’t just have faith in something because we want it to be true, we have to have faith in something because it is true.
0
Comments
I don't think sheep follow the leader off the cliff... lemmings would be a much better example there.
I would argue that the truth doesn't have to make sense. What 'makes sense' is simply what fits in with our understanding. The truth and 'reality' are right in front of you. This is it... there's nothing more to it. There's no need to search for anything. I think that's where Buddhism comes in. It basically removes everything that clouds the mind and leaves you free to just see thing as they are.
That's just me though.
If you weren't looking for constructive criticism, sorry. Thanks for sharing, I enjoyed reading it. I think those are pretty much the same thoughts many of us had at some stage, so I understand where you're coming from.
what exactly is valuable? truth? happiness?
if your interested in writing a philosophical book, i could probably help you a bit, but try and get a concrete idea of what you want to say.
so far you've said several things that are almost contradictory.
1. the universe is a tiny blue marble
2. we are capable of many things (could be viewed as contradictory to 1)
3. people follow prophets like sheep and don't think for themselves (with the implication that they should)
4. it is impossible to be successful in searching for truth (contradictory with 3?)
5. what is truth? what makes us happy or what makes sense?
I'd say that the truth is always objective, maybe the question is, is truth less valuable than what makes sense or what makes us happy?
I think you should get a better idea of three things in the philosophy.
what is valuable? how should people act?
what is the universe really like?(or can we not know?)
that is the general layout of philosophies, they include some descriptive power (what's the universe like, how do people act) and some meta-ethical power (how people should act/what is valuable)
1. the universe is a tiny blue marble
>>No, I said the world is.
2. we are capable of many things (could be viewed as contradictory to 1)
>>How is that contradicting to the world being small?
3. people follow prophets like sheep and don't think for themselves (with the implication that they should)
>>Many people do, and I never implied they should. Infact, I'm against it.
4. it is impossible to be successful in searching for truth (contradictory with 3?)
>>I said perhaps it is. Never definitely.
5. what is truth? what makes us happy or what makes sense?
I'd say that the truth is always objective, maybe the question is, is truth less valuable than what makes sense or what makes us happy?
>>We can't deny the truth. I could say I'm rich, but I have to come to the conclusion some time that I'm just middle-class.
2. It seemed your implication was that we were insignificant, not just small. And that seems to contradict with your point about emotion etc.
3/4. Your implication was that people should think for themselves. But you said that it was perhaps impossible to find the truth, so which should they do?
5. So, is the truth objective? Is there a real world outside of our minds? I'm not talking about subjective comparisons like rich, I'm talking about descriptions of reality, is there one truth or many?
So, just trying to help here, what is your description, are we insignificant? are we significant?
and what is your meta-ethical theory should people search for truth?
I'm not criticizing, I'm just trying to understand the description of the universe/world and your idea of what people should do. If you want to write a philosophy those are really the two only questions.
2. It seemed your implication was that we were insignificant, not just small. And that seems to contradict with your point about emotion etc.
>>I was trying to show that, even though we are a small, meek world, we have incredible potential, the likes of which may not exist anywhere else in this universe.
3/4. Your implication was that people should think for themselves. But you said that it was perhaps impossible to find the truth, so which should they do?
>>Think and act for themselves, because they probably won't know Reality without doing so.
5. So, is the truth objective? Is there a real world outside of our minds? I'm not talking about subjective comparisons like rich, I'm talking about descriptions of reality, is there one truth or many?
So, just trying to help here, what is your description, are we insignificant? are we significant?
and what is your meta-ethical theory should people search for truth?
>>We seem insignificant, yet we seem to have potential but we aren't tapping into that potential. And, later on I'm going to explain the path that lead me to Buddhism. Why other beliefs don't seem to make sense and why I think Buddhism does.
I suppose I should make things more clear. Thanks.
So people should think and act for themselves, because it is the only method to reliably understand reality. does this mean truth is valuable intrinsically?
the best way to set up a system of ethics is to describe what is valuable and how people ought to act to achieve that value. for example, utilitarianism takes pleasure as a value and pain as a negative, no matter what. the best action is always the one that maximizes happiness or minimizes pain.
meta-ethics deals not only with how we should act towards others but how we should act generally, so, how should we act generally? or is your philosophy purely descriptive?
if the world is significant, why so?
trying to move along the clarification of your philosophy so you have a strong thesis.
>>Because we function in a way that we can't seem to find anywhere else in the universe, yes.
So people should think and act for themselves, because it is the only method to reliably understand reality. does this mean truth is valuable intrinsically?
>>I suppose... I accept Buddhism because it makes the most sense to me, though I have not denied in anyway some other beliefs. Taoism and such are possibilities.
the best way to set up a system of ethics is to describe what is valuable and how people ought to act to achieve that value. for example, utilitarianism takes pleasure as a value and pain as a negative, no matter what. the best action is always the one that maximizes happiness or minimizes pain.
meta-ethics deals not only with how we should act towards others but how we should act generally, so, how should we act generally? or is your philosophy purely descriptive?
>>Well, by saying "a book on philosophy" I mean how I seem to see the world. As of now, pretty much Buddhist beliefs.
what are your theories on metaphysics?
sub-branches of metaphysics are epistemology (philosophy of knowledge), philosophy of the mind, philosophy of language, and aesthetics (philosophy of art)
you seem to be most interested in general metaphysics and philosophy of the mind, no?
---
Exactly. I believe that "right and wrong" and "good and bad" are relative to the person and ethics cannot really be set. I believe the eight fold path and eight precepts are good for most people, though.
Anywho, yes, I'm quite interested in metaphysics and the philosophy of the mind, considering thats what most people are concerned about as well or religions wouldn't have creation myths.
As of now, I have a rough theory on an infinite Reality which is forever changing (infinite amount of universes, dimensions, everything.). I suppose you could say its like String Theory, I suppose, though I'm not too educated on the subject. And I'm also interested in the question, "Does life have meaning?" I, personally, believe that it overall, does not, because of two things:
1) There is no you. Pretty much the not-self concept. You live and die, but you are recycled, and you are never the same at any point in time. You are always changing, always different, your body dies and is recreated every second (referring to skin cells and stuff.) There really is no "you." You are made molecules which were something else at some time.
2) Oneness. I believe that, if Reality is actually infinite, everything must be intertwined. Its as if Reality is a painting, its all on the same canvas. Everything is on this canvas, one with the canvas. You aren't really alive or dead at any one time. You are always alive and dead. In this Reality, since there is no "you," you are part of everything.
Does it make sense or is it convoluted?
Also be careful when you say things about life having or not having meaning. this is a big issue in metaphysics. Meaning can only exist in subjective situations. meaning is basically significance, it is necessarily subjective because significance is a relative term. because meaning can only exist subjectively the only way something could intrinsically contain meaning would be if it were part of an all encompassing system. the universe can only be considered an all encompassing system if there is a maker of some sort. if you don't believe in god nothing can have meaning.
this extends to concepts like purpose and value. these are also comparative and so can only exist intrinsically within things if there were an all encompassing "system."
if there is no god there is by definition no meaning purpose or value.
i'm really not trying to be offensive here, trying to help but - any metaphysical philosophy that wishes to have rationality can necessarily be no different than existential nihilism. unless you can prove god that is. so any attempt to explain the universe must necessarily either contain a god or be a parroting of nihilism with modern scientific principles. you shouldn't focus much on the nature of the universe as a whole unless you plan to move more from philosophy to science or you plan to include a god.
on the issue of the philosophy of the mind, this should probably be the focus of your book. so what are your theories there?
sorry if i'm a little dream-crushing. i just wouldn't want you to waste time explaining the universe and realize you are just rephrasing nihilism in combination with modern science. focus on philosophy of the mind, and epistemology or start talking about what people SHOULD do.
But please, first, let me explain the whole infiniteness thing...
I'll do that tomorrow. I'm too tired to do it now.
if you accept modern science and that there is no god, your description of the universe will either be illogical or just nihilism with modern science.
this is why you should focus on the mind or on meta-ethics in your general philosophy. I would suggest you focus on a more specific field. you seem to not like Christianity just as much as me, maybe write a book on why people are Christian, why they believe in god, why it is detrimental to society, why they shouldn't believe in god etc.
that's just an example but my point is you really can't write an entire book entirely on metaphysics if you don't believe in god. maybe an essay. you could write a whole book on the mind in general. or another philosophical field. but it will be a lot harder than focusing in on a specific issue.
And I don't exactly know what nihilism is.