I truly do not care what anyone else believes, so long as it doesn’t lead them to inhibit the fundamental human rights of others.
Personally, I take pride in trying to see things from multiple points of view. Logic and reason are, more often than not, the things that drive my actions… to a degree. Obviously I’m not perfect nor have I ever claimed to be, but I do my best to think clearly and deduce the best course of action. That isn’t to say that I don’t get complacent, but I see no point in trying to deny anyone anything if they aren’t hurting anyone else. Treat others as you’d like to be treated and all that.
I truly do not care what anyone else believes, so long as it doesn’t lead them to inhibit the fundamental human rights of others.
I agree. Anyone has the right to believe what ever they want.
The problem is that so many faiths have the belief their’s is the only correct one and they have the right (no, the duty…) to force their beliefs on others.
It is the perfect example of the paradox of tolerance.
It is the perfect example of the paradox of tolerance.
Yep. Once the nazis start drinking at your bar, it becomes a nazi bar whether you wanted it to or not. Tolerance of the intolerant only breeds further intolerance. You gotta cut it off somewhere.
deleted by creator
It’s one thing to be angry that someone did something wrong and to demand they be punished for it, it’s another thing entirely to continue being intolerant of them once they’ve accepted and ultimately finished that punishment. Our society has something against ex-cons (likely because our government does little to cut down on recidivism rates) but they’re just folks that’ve screwed up and did their time. Their debt to society has been paid.
In any case, what I was saying wasn’t that we should be tolerant of the intolerant. Quite the opposite. It makes no sense to tolerate others inhibiting the rights of others.
This!
I totally agree. But I increasingly notice that logic and reason, albeit great tools to navigate the world, don’t offer any answers to the “bigger” questions.
I’m not religious or spiritual at all, but the Buddhist way of thinking, viewing the world and how to improve yourself is always interesting.
What do you find intersting about it?
I follow a pagan path (but I’m not Wiccan). I view it more as a spirituality than a religion since it isn’t organized or faith based. It just resonates with me. I wear witchy jewelry for personal comfort, maintain an altar at home (mostly for tarot, incense and meditation), love to study folklore and pagan practices in other parts of the world, celebrate the wheel of the year, and honor nature and the cosmos above all.
I grew up atheist and still consider myself one since I view gods as a reflection of the real world, akin to Mother Nature.
Haha I’m another atheist with an altar at home! Instead of religious symbols, there are framed pictures of ancestors.
Normally in Asia we worship at these altars (usually involving serving food and drinks), but I don’t do that. I just see it as a nice reminder of the memories I’ve had with all those people, and a connection to the past.
…although the idea you can crack open a beer with your ancestors from time to time is sort of neat.
That’s interesting, how did you come to that?
I find comfort in the Zhuangzi, a text that later became associated with daoism.
To me, the zhuangzi is about accepting the inevitablity of change by remembering that the human scale is only a small part of the crazy and unknowable universe we exist in.
It’s hilarious, an obvious work of genius, and surprisingly modern. Unlike the dao de jing, it uses nonsense and satire to make very real and relevant points about the human plight.
Do you have an example or excerpt? I’d be interested in reading the absurdist parts, myself.
He’s the guy who said he wasn’t sure whether he was a man dreaming he was a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming he was a man.
It’s said that when his wife died his friend found him drumming and singing. When asked why he was behaving inappropriately, he said. “if I weren’t singing I would cry, and then I would have forgotten that all things are constantly transitioning into something else.”
There’s also a certain amount of philosophical one-up-manship.
‘Inner’ Chapters, written by Zhuangzi with scholarly comments and context: https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/handle/2022/23427
‘Outer’ Chapters with chinese text (sorry probably better options out there): https://ctext.org/zhuangzi/outer-chapters
Niether Lord Nor Subject, by Bao Jingyan (another daoist text I find incredibly beautiful and calming. It’s ~8min): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs23tDAaEhoZiyu fell ill. Zisi went to see how he was. “How remarkable!” said Ziyu. “The Creator of things is making me into this hooked shape. A hump has thrust up from my back, my five viscera are top-wards, my cheeks are in the shadow of my belly, my shoulders rise above my head, and my pigtail is pointing at the sky! It must be some dislocation of my yin and yang qi.”
Yet he was calm at heart and unconcerned. Crawling to the well, he looked in at his reflection.
“Oh, my! The Creator’s made me even more crooked!”
“Do you resent it?” asked Zisi.
“Why, no! What is there to resent? If this goes on perhaps he’ll turn my left arm into a rooster and I’ll keep watch over the night. Or perhaps in time he’ll transform my right arm into a crossbow pellet and I’ll shoot down an owl to roast. Or perhaps he’ll turn my buttocks into cartwheels and I’ll ascend into the sky with my spirit as my horse! Why would I ever want a new carriage again?
“I received life because the season had come. I will lose it in the flow of time. Content with the seasons and dwelling in the flow of time, neither sorrow nor joy can get within me. In ancient times this was called ‘untying the bonds.’ There are those who cannot free themselves because they are bound by things. Besides, no thing can ever prevail over Heaven – that’s the way it has always been. What would I have to resent?”
…
“The Great Clod burdens me with form, labors me with life, eases me in old age, rests me in death. So if I think well of my life, for the same reason I must think well of my death. Were a skilled smith casting metal, if the metal should leap up and say, ‘I insist on becoming a Moye-type sword!’ the smith would regard it as most inauspicious metal indeed. Now having had the audacity to have once taken on human form, I should now say, ‘I won’t be anything but a man! Nothing but a man!’ the Creator would surely regard me as a most inauspicious person."That’s a section I love from chapter 6.
This is the end of the inner chapters. Note that ‘Hundun’ means both chaos and wonton, so think something like a metaphorical primordial meatball.
The god of the Southern Sea was Swift; the god of the Northern Sea was Sudden. The god of the center was Hundun. Swift and Sudden would often meet in the land of Hundun, and Hundun would host them with great courtesy. Swift and Sudden made a plan to return Hundun’s generosity. “All men have seven orifices,” they said, “so that they can see and hear, eat and breathe. Hundun alone has none. Why don’t we bore these for him?”
Each day they bored one orifice and on the seventh day, Hundun died.Gotta appreciate philosophy that knows how to stick the punchline.
That’s just the bit we think Zhuangzi definitely wrote, but the ‘outer’ and ‘miscellaneous’ chapters have some good stuff. The happiness of fish story from Autumn Floods really sticks with me. The whole chapter on Cutting Satchels is a vicious refutation of the state:
“In taking precautions against thieves who cut open satchels, search bags, and break open boxes, people are sure to cord and fasten them well, and to employ strong bonds and clasps; and in this they are ordinarily said to show their wisdom. When a great thief comes, however, he shoulders the box, lifts up the satchel, carries off the bag, and runs away with them, afraid only that the cords, bonds, and clasps may not be secure; and in this case what was called the wisdom (of the owners) proves to be nothing but a collecting of the things for the great thief.”
this chapter is especially interesting when you compare it in style and subject to Neither Lord Nor Subject.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=Gs23tDAaEho
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Thanks! Can you recommend a book / translation?
https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/handle/2022/23427
Here’s a combined translation/commentary from a scholar. It has some important context.
It’s only the ‘Inner’ chapters - this is the section that is generally accepted as written by Master Zhuang himself because it’s “governed by a single creative vision”. The ‘outer’ and ‘miscellanious’ sections still have some great chapters - ‘stealing’ is one of my favorites.
Also, here’s an 8m video of a semi-related daoist text called Neither Lord Nor Master. I find it so relevant. The first sentence is basically: Confucians say heaven ordained authority, but that’s a lie told by people who benefit from oppression. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs23tDAaEho
Logic because it brings me closest to the reality I perceive and thus find my way easier.
That’s been my way as well so far. I’d be interested in how logic helps you cope with questions, such as where do we come from?, where do we go?, what is our purpose?. (Not playing devil’s advocate, real interest.)
I think those questions are great, but the answers will always lead to more questions. It is a journey in that regard which I suppose is logically driven. I think the best analogy is asking what is this table. It is made of wood and screws. What is wood made of…fibres. What are the fibre made of, carbon and other atoms. What was the atoms made of….etc. etc. Logic brings you closer to reality, but the closer you get, the more questions you will have which is one of the joys of life.
Not the person you’re asking, but logic tells me that these questions are meaningless so no “coping” required 🤷♀️
But what is even meaningful? Or do you dont think of whats this all about? Just about your everyday life?
Unless something some day suggests “this” is “all about” anything at all, it seems weird to me to try and imagine meaning where there’s no evidence of any 🤷♀️
No judgement on people who find that scary or take comfort in faith or whatever, we’re all different. Just doesn’t bother me.
I’m an agnostic atheist, but recently I’ve been drawn to somewhat pagan beliefs about spirituality in nature. I can’t bring myself to believe in some mother Gaia goddess that controls the flow of nature, but something about nature holding innate power and energy rings true. I’m still figuring it out.
I had some traumatic events happen in my life recently, and in looking for ways to feel safe again I found myself believing in things I’ve never believed in before. I had some serious dysphoria about it lol, I was like “is this how ancient humans developed religions? A result of terror and seeking comfort?” As someone who became an atheist on my own as a young child, having any belief in something without actual evidence was making me question a lot about myself. But I don’t think I need to pigeon-hole myself into any self-made boxes, I can just let my beliefs be.
Thanks for sharing, I can relate to the desire for comfort and hope you can find it somewhere soon.
Stoicism. The two major figures that I use to discuss stoicism are Viktor Frankl and Epictetus. Epictetus was born a slave and was crippled by his owner, but eventually was freed and found a happy life teaching Stoicism. Viktor Frankl wrote about finding meaning in life even living in the concentration camps. While not explicitly Stoic, his Logotherapy lines up very well with Stoic principles.
As for the spiritual component: https://stoickai.com/2019/09/19/the-stoic-god-a-call-to-science-or-faith/
As an athiest I also like stoicism a lot. Epictetus is definitely a real one, loved reading discourses. Would also recommend Seneca although I found it a bit drier. And the famous Meditations from Marcus Aurelius.
Nothing, I guess I just never needed any spiritual support. I grew up an atheist, my parents never took me to any church or prayed or told any religious stories of any kind. Then suddenly, in high school, I decided to tell them I was non religious they were surprised. They said we are Methodists. Well, that’s news to me. Maybe you are, but I was never baptized or anything.
Funny thing, I also never got “the talk.” I managed to figure things out for myself there, too.
I’m an atheist through and through, but the one thing I’m unsure about is consciousness.
We basically made zero progress in figuring out what it physically is, how to test for it or how it is created, despite every single one of us experiencing it first-hand every day of our lives. That might be a sign that our physical understanding of reality is just not equipped to deal with this question.
On the other hand, if it has physical consequences then it must measurably interact with the physical world, and maybe it emerges from the complex interactions in the brain somehow. I personally just cannot imagine how the thing I’m subjectively experiencing as myself could ever arise from “dead” atoms and molecules.
The main reason I think consciousness is just advanced firing of synapses in the brain is because drugs can impact it, surgeries can impact it, flaws in the system can impact it.
If it was anything more than physical, these things wouldn’t affect consciousness so easily.
Take those who have had their Corpus Callosum split. It’s widely viewed that patients with this procedure end up with two distinct consciousnesses communicating with each other (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7305066/) which suggests to me that consciousness must be nothing more than the effects of complex physical systems in our brains.
If it was anything more than physical, these things wouldn’t affect consciousness so easily.
We know that it changes perception and behavior, because those are the things we can measure. We have no idea if it affects consciousness, because we don’t even know what that is.
[…] which suggests to me that consciousness must be nothing more than the effects of complex physical systems in our brains.
The problem I have with these studies is that they all test the functions of the brain and its hemispheres, and then argue what the produced consciousness(es) could look like based on some preconceived notion of what a consciousness can an cannot do. But who says that one consciousness cannot make two different choices simultaneously for example? Ofc it’s the best we have right now and imo very interesting and important work, but it’s still nothing like actually “detecting” consciousness and analyzing its properties. The sad truth is that we still have no f*cking clue.
I know that this all sounds very ominous, but that’s kind of the point. Consciousness as I’d define it is not just the mechanical function of the brain, but the experience of being “present”.
Nihilism. Imagine there being no past nor future, but like a child in a waiting room for the abyss you’re given a paper and some crayons. Why wouldn’t you try to draw the greatest piece you could? And if something goes wrong, well it’s just a happy accident. It’s not like this matters anyway. That’s how I see my life. This mindset let’s me not stress over old mistakes, while still striving to be better. I don’t want to waste this metaphorical paper but it doesn’t matter what I do with it in greater whole, since there isn’t a greater whole.
You know, it makes so much sense, and I truly resonate with tbese ideas, but I’ve never been able to put them into practice. I’m still finding myself running 5 minutes late leaves me super stressed, even though I’m now at university where being late for a lecture literally does not matter, or at college, where for the last few months it really didn’t matter but I still couldn’t quite just relax. I’ve been trying to live a more stress-free life and this belief system really helps me do that, if only I could find a way to not hyperfocus on small and insignificant issues or mistakes. Stress has been hurting me, to the point where oftentimes I would find it difficult to keep my hand stillin the air, and it would just start slightly twitching, as if I have Parkinson’s.
Hey have you read about Boltzmann brains? You might get a kick out of it, it’s an idea that amuses me a lot:
I pray to Joe Pesci, because he looks like a guy that can get things done!
I just saw a comedian yesterday saying the same haha. but I forgot the name
George Carlin, live at the Paramount 1992 a special for HBO if I remember correctly.
I had to think about this for a minute because I’m British and religion is just not a huge deal here so I don’t often think about it. Got some religious friends (mostly Americans but there are a few here too) but it’s just never really been a part of my life in a positive or a negative way.
My philosophy pretty much boils down to “we’re just here, roll with it” because anything else is essentially looking for meaning where it appears to not exist.
Personally, I am an atheist, and I find nihilism, absurdism, and to a lesser extent, stoicism, to be the philosophies I most closely resonate with.
Any of them that help people live easier or better lives, up to the point that that belief negatively impacts others’ lives. Do what you want as long as it doesn’t come at the expense of someone else.
I’m Eastern Orthodox, I believe it to be the full and complete continuation of the Christian Church from its earliest days.
How do you come to this conclusion?
There are only two major churches which have a valid historical claim to be a direct succession of the original Church, the other one being the Roman Catholic Church. On the major points of contention - the filioque and papal supremacy - I found the history of the early Church to be solidly supporting of the Orthodox view.
I found the history of the early Church to be solidly supporting of the Orthodox view.
Not to be a dick, but that’s because they did their absolute best to kill heretics and dismantle their belief systems by destroying their literature.
The early church had a lot of ideas about Jesus and his purpose, but the gnostics and other groups were all suppressed by the Orthodox Church and we only know about their beliefs through the lens of their interlocutors.
History is written by the victors, if the Orthodox Church is responsible for early church history they’re going to give you their version of it.
Rome killed heretics, because Christianity was the state religion, and turned to the Church to speak to what is and is not Christianity. And the Church has condemned things like gnosticism as non-Christian from the very beginning. Don’t confuse Rome having an official prescribed acceptable set of religions with some nefarious scheme by the Church. It is the role of the bishops to speak to what the authentic Christian faith is; what the state - in this case, the Roman empire - does with that information, with regard to non-Christian faiths, is it’s own business. The Church is under no onus to accept false theology as Christian simply for fear that the Empire will persecute those people if they don’t. In fact, she would’ve been wrong to do so, and unfaithful to her commission by Christ had they compromised the Christian religion that way.
