[quote]yusef wrote:
Makavali wrote:
yusef wrote:
The only thing I am certain of is that God exists. I’m not even sure if I exist.
God exists in your mind only, and if you don’t exist, neither does God.
What if God precedes mind? You can not access mind without being in the realm of God first[/quote]
Round and round we go, where this logic stops, nobody knows.
The best philosophical discussions I ever had (or at least think I did) happened while I was stoned out of my mind. I should record that stuff.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
CCJDilla wrote:
Without identification is without existence.
You are stating the obvious, however, neglected to mention that identification is also the creator of every other emotion.
…is a baby without existence? When an infant is hungry, it cries. When it is happy, it smiles. If it tastes something it doesn’t like, it’s displeased. So there is emotion, feeling and expression without identification. Perhaps i must quantify that statement though, because in certain respects to be totally without identification means you won’t know what a shoe is, for instance…
…knowing this, having realised this, does release you from needless suffering but maintains the ability to function in society. Not all of us are priviledged enough to live in a monestary, that’s for sure…
[/quote]
Err… who said a baby is unable to identify…
Can I ask you something: Do you even know what the defintion of identify is???
Because the way you analysed my statement seemed to be as if, you think animals and anything without the ability of complex communications is unable to identify.
Your analyzing identification in incorrectly. You are identifying my words right now. You are identifying the typing you have/are doing right now. Identification is a process that comes across in almost any situation.
On all the cases of which you exemplified babies expression, you forgot to notify the product of what happened. Baby hungry, sad, baby full, happy… it identified that it was hungry, and, it identified it was full, therefore it was sad when hungry, and, happy when full.
One does not have to communicate his thoughts in order to identify… did the definition of identify ever say that was wrong???
One does not have to identify something CORRECTLY, did the definition ever say that must be done???
[quote]CCJDilla wrote:
ephrem wrote:
CCJDilla wrote:
Without identification is without existence.
You are stating the obvious, however, neglected to mention that identification is also the creator of every other emotion.
…is a baby without existence? When an infant is hungry, it cries. When it is happy, it smiles. If it tastes something it doesn’t like, it’s displeased. So there is emotion, feeling and expression without identification. Perhaps i must quantify that statement though, because in certain respects to be totally without identification means you won’t know what a shoe is, for instance…
…knowing this, having realised this, does release you from needless suffering but maintains the ability to function in society. Not all of us are priviledged enough to live in a monestary, that’s for sure…
Err… who said a baby is unable to identify…
Can I ask you something: Do you even know what the defintion of identify is???
Because the way you analysed my statement seemed to be as if, you think animals and anything without the ability of complex communications is unable to identify.
Your analyzing identification in incorrectly. You are identifying my words right now. You are identifying the typing you have/are doing right now. Identification is a process that comes across in almost any situation.
On all the cases of which you exemplified babies expression, you forgot to notify the product of what happened. Baby hungry, sad, baby full, happy… it identified that it was hungry, and, it identified it was full, therefore it was sad when hungry, and, happy when full.
One does not have to communicate his thoughts in order to identify… did the definition of identify ever say that was wrong???
One does not have to identify something CORRECTLY, did the definition ever say that must be done???
[/quote]
…what i mean with identification is not recognizing objects or people as what they are, but identifying-with, as in: “that is mine, why does that happen to me, i love this/i hate this”. Identifying-with reinforces the self as a separate entity, and it is this identifying-with that is the root of suffering. Apologies for the confusion…
I tried reading this post, which is to say, the quoted and discolored text below my own, or that contained herein this post, and all I could take from the work, as it is, visa vi, was Mojo Jojo having just smoked, which is to say inhaled with the intent of taking in to the lungs, some really bad weed.
Or in other words, Mary Jane and the OP had a dance, and this was the deepness brought about therefrom.
[quote]CCJDilla wrote:
Of course, seeing as this is a bodybuilding forum, I would believe that one’s thought would wander elsewhere then to the ultimate thinker of them all: Philosophy in itself.
When I say Philosophy, I mean in broad range, do not limit yourself to another’s thoughts, they of course are entitled to such, but, to solely believe in such views (ie: only believing in existentilism etc.) is ignorant on your part.
I have not studied philosophy and I am only limited to my own thoughts and beliefs and relatively little of others.
So, considering the popularity of this off-topic subsection, I thought it would be nice to see the Philosophical Perspectives of all of the people here in T-Nation.
gkchesterton: The purpose of that is to help another find one’s own beliefs and what they relegate to, although not neccesarily always used in that way, I would find zero value in doing such unless one felt it were right to do such.
[/quote]
[quote]ephrem wrote:
CCJDilla wrote:
ephrem wrote:
CCJDilla wrote:
Without identification is without existence.
You are stating the obvious, however, neglected to mention that identification is also the creator of every other emotion.
…is a baby without existence? When an infant is hungry, it cries. When it is happy, it smiles. If it tastes something it doesn’t like, it’s displeased. So there is emotion, feeling and expression without identification. Perhaps i must quantify that statement though, because in certain respects to be totally without identification means you won’t know what a shoe is, for instance…
…knowing this, having realised this, does release you from needless suffering but maintains the ability to function in society. Not all of us are priviledged enough to live in a monestary, that’s for sure…
Err… who said a baby is unable to identify…
Can I ask you something: Do you even know what the defintion of identify is???
Because the way you analysed my statement seemed to be as if, you think animals and anything without the ability of complex communications is unable to identify.
Your analyzing identification in incorrectly. You are identifying my words right now. You are identifying the typing you have/are doing right now. Identification is a process that comes across in almost any situation.
On all the cases of which you exemplified babies expression, you forgot to notify the product of what happened. Baby hungry, sad, baby full, happy… it identified that it was hungry, and, it identified it was full, therefore it was sad when hungry, and, happy when full.
One does not have to communicate his thoughts in order to identify… did the definition of identify ever say that was wrong???
One does not have to identify something CORRECTLY, did the definition ever say that must be done???
…what i mean with identification is not recognizing objects or people as what they are, but identifying-with, as in: “that is mine, why does that happen to me, i love this/i hate this”. Identifying-with reinforces the self as a separate entity, and it is this identifying-with that is the root of suffering. Apologies for the confusion…
[/quote]
Hmm, quite right, it would be difficult to find a word suitable for that explanation…
Well thank you for clearing that up, and, I have to think about that one for a bit. Identifying something as a seperate entity seems to be more complex in an analytical sense. It’s binding both understanding and identification (so, I’ll just go by that).
So, for me, I would define it as identification with understanding.
But, to say such causes suffering is a whole other issue.
To think of identification + understanding as the root of suffering… well, it’s something that is deterred by one’s perspective on identification and understanding.
It becomes so second-hand our mind adapts to it and sees it as normal. I mean, it’s like how Terrorists think killing people is normal, but, we see that as… well… terrifying haha.
If anything, I would believe that you are correct… seeing as suffering in reality occurs because of those very qualities in a person.
&& Vash, lol, :D, when, me, MJ and a bong dance, it’s actually to the joys of the world, and, not ponder such dark things reliant on the sense and logic of one (remembering that the logic of an individual may be illogical to another).
Being realistic is so boring bahaha
[quote]CCJDilla wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…what i mean with identification is not recognizing objects or people as what they are, but identifying-with, as in: “that is mine, why does that happen to me, i love this/i hate this”. Identifying-with reinforces the self as a separate entity, and it is this identifying-with that is the root of suffering. Apologies for the confusion…
Hmm, quite right, it would be difficult to find a word suitable for that explanation…
Well thank you for clearing that up, and, I have to think about that one for a bit. Identifying something as a seperate entity seems to be more complex in an analytical sense. It’s binding both understanding and identification (so, I’ll just go by that).
So, for me, I would define it as identification with understanding.
But, to say such causes suffering is a whole other issue.
To think of identification + understanding as the root of suffering… well, it’s something that is deterred by one’s perspective on identification and understanding.
It becomes so second-hand our mind adapts to it and sees it as normal. I mean, it’s like how Terrorists think killing people is normal, but, we see that as… well… terrifying haha.
If anything, I would believe that you are correct… seeing as suffering in reality occurs because of those very qualities in a person.
[/quote]
…our very minds are in essence identification-with, and it is this sense of self that’s the cause of suffering. Pain or fear is not suffering; it’s when one experiences pain or fear and it is unwanted, that’s when pain or fear becomes suffering…
Wow… epiphany man, you just made this so clear!!! And it’s such a perfect analogy
Okay, I’ve got one for you guys.
Does free will exist?
[quote]SSC wrote:
Okay, I’ve got one for you guys.
Does free will exist?[/quote]
I say 50-50 chance.
But I say no god, gods, or goddesses except in one’s mind as an idea.
[quote]SSC wrote:
Okay, I’ve got one for you guys.
Does free will exist?[/quote]
It does in Canada…
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Guaranteed some dickbag is going to post some Ayn Rand bullshit in this thread.
Philosophy, my ass.
[/quote]
Very immature statement. Anyone who makes any kind of philosophical statement echoes some philosopher. Why does one become a ‘dickbag’ just for posting Ayn Rand philosophy? You do realize that the point of this thread is to solicit philosophical takes right?
A tough one.
What is time?
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
SSC wrote:
Okay, I’ve got one for you guys.
Does free will exist?
It does in Canada…
LOL