I'm not trying to silence you, but rather get YOU to think about others' opinions, besides your own. I do try to see your views and others, and if I disagree, that's fine. But, it doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means...I disagree. If you disagree with me, that doesn't mean that I'm wrong, either. Again, when it comes to philosophy, who can be right or wrong? So, let's not quarrel.
(Oct 17, 2017 04:15 AM)Leigha Wrote: My bubble is precious, yes. lol Just likes yours.
I'm not trying to silence you, but rather get YOU to think about others' opinions, besides your own. I do try to see your views and others, and if I disagree, that's fine. But, it doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means...I disagree. If you disagree with me, that doesn't mean that I'm wrong, either. Again, when it comes to philosophy, who can be right or wrong? So, let's not quarrel.
(Oct 17, 2017 04:15 AM)Leigha Wrote: My bubble is precious, yes. lol Just likes yours.
I'm not trying to silence you, but rather get YOU to think about others' opinions, besides your own. I do try to see your views and others, and if I disagree, that's fine. But, it doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means...I disagree. If you disagree with me, that doesn't mean that I'm wrong, either. Again, when it comes to philosophy, who can be right or wrong? So, let's not quarrel.
I don't have a bubble. I'm constantly awash in views that oppose my own...in the prevailing secular culture and media.
Sure, from a moral relativist's point of view, all opinions are equal. So why are you arguing? You see, from your apparent belief, YOU have no reason to argue, but from mine, I do. These are very relevant issues in philosophy, and much debated. You claiming your favored philosophical view is paramount is simply a bare assertion, without any argument at all.
Just because you don't, or can't be bothered to, have the wherewithal to support your views, doesn't compel anything of me. And "let's not quarrel" is just a thought-terminating cliche:
"Sometimes they are used in a deliberate attempt to shut down debate, manipulate others to think a certain way, or dismiss dissent. However, some people repeat them, even to themselves, out of habit, conditioning or as a defense mechanism." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clich%C3%A...lich.C3.A9
(Oct 17, 2017 04:15 AM)Leigha Wrote: My bubble is precious, yes. lol Just likes yours.
I'm not trying to silence you, but rather get YOU to think about others' opinions, besides your own. I do try to see your views and others, and if I disagree, that's fine. But, it doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means...I disagree. If you disagree with me, that doesn't mean that I'm wrong, either. Again, when it comes to philosophy, who can be right or wrong? So, let's not quarrel.
I don't have a bubble. I'm constantly awash in views that oppose my own...in the prevailing secular culture and media.
Sure, from a moral relativist's point of view, all opinions are equal. So why are you arguing? You see, from your apparent belief, YOU have no reason to argue, but from mine, I do. These are very relevant issues in philosophy, and much debated. You claiming your favored philosophical view is paramount is simply a bare assertion, without any argument at all.
Just because you don't, or can't be bothered to, have the wherewithal to support your views, doesn't compel anything of me. And "let's not quarrel" is just a thought-terminating cliche:
"Sometimes they are used in a deliberate attempt to shut down debate, manipulate others to think a certain way, or dismiss dissent. However, some people repeat them, even to themselves, out of habit, conditioning or as a defense mechanism." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clich%C3%A...lich.C3.A9
Quote:They are often sayings that have been embedded in a culture's folk wisdom and are tempting to say because they often sound true or good or like the right thing to say.[15]
is there a difference between genders on this ?
females being driven through natural selection to not argue
males being driven by natural selection to refuse to change
Generically speaking does "not argue" have 2 different meanings depending on its gender identity ?
men suffer from opening up to debate and allowing descent and thus loosing breeding rights to women.
women suffer for opening up debate by being beaten continuosely for years & years...
does a man saying "i do not wish to argue" mean somethng different to a women saying "i do not wish to argue" ?
Syne Wrote:Happiness is only transient when it relies on material things like the senses and bodily pleasure alone. The ability to imbue things with meaning allows one to enjoy all things. Not just "little aesthetic gratifications". There is no journey to enjoy without the ability to postulate goals to attain. How do you postulate goals without assigning significance? How can the journey toward subjectively meaningless goals be enjoyable?
There’s no limit to what can become a source of aesthetic experience.
You're like one of those little yappy, snappy dogs, aren't you?
LeighaOct 17, 2017 01:48 PM (This post was last modified: Oct 17, 2017 01:51 PM by Leigha.)
I’ve been told I’m passive-aggressive at times, but I don’t manipulate in arguments. Lol I’d say though Syne, that your argument style seems to be that of aggression/insulting, etc…and it’s off putting. Your points are often very insightful, but sometimes, can get lost in your need to always be ''right''. Just an observation. So, I guess we’re all works in progress around here.
I’ll come back to the actual topic later! (The topic btw, is about positive growth, not necessarily ''happiness.'' One could make the argument that positive growth leads to happiness, but it actually leads to long lasting contentment and peace, which are different from happiness, which I do agree with Syne...is transient.)
(Oct 17, 2017 04:53 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote:
(Oct 17, 2017 04:15 AM)Leigha Wrote: My bubble is precious, yes. lol Just likes yours.
I'm not trying to silence you, but rather get YOU to think about others' opinions, besides your own. I do try to see your views and others, and if I disagree, that's fine. But, it doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means...I disagree. If you disagree with me, that doesn't mean that I'm wrong, either. Again, when it comes to philosophy, who can be right or wrong? So, let's not quarrel.
(Oct 17, 2017 01:10 AM)Leigha Wrote: Agree with you, SS. I used to escape into religion, but not anymore...I don't begrudge people who do. It's their choice. If religion brings them happiness, so be it. But, for me, I find a lot of joy in not creating illusions for myself, but in accepting that life offers a potpourri of beautiful and not so beautiful events, that shape us. That is the essence of life itself. I believe that suffering has the ability to shape us for the better, but it can also as you say, be too much to bare. I find Nietzsche's commentary about suffering to be particularly curious, in that he felt that suffering was somewhat necessary to leading a fulfilling life.
"What does not kill me makes me stronger."—Nietzsche
Well, you know that I'm a Nietzsche fan. It was good. Thanks!
"Nietzsche was against Christianity for the same reason he was against getting drunk. In the short term, going to hear a sermon in the church might make you feel quite good in the same way that getting drunk could make you feel quite good, but in the long term, Christianity in Nietzsche’s eyes, dulls pain, and in this way also dulls the energy that pain can give us to overcome problems."—Alain de Botton
Once you’re free from society’s ideals, the hard part is figuring out what it is that you want.
Goodnight, little Missy.
(Oct 17, 2017 02:50 AM)Ostronomos Wrote: Indeed. But alas, in no way does this exclude us from the divine. Although the body perishes, our energy field becomes one with the universe upon death. But this only theoretically works if and when we go Quantum, not Classical. There are books on the Boddhisattvas teachings regarding this very metaphysical nature.
We eat dead things. We eat for energy. We took it from the field and we’ll return it to the field. Our energy will be recycled. I wouldn’t call decomposition a metaphysical thing, though.
I was referring to the unified field or universal consciousness as the energy we connect to upon absolute death - the complete cessation of the bodily functions. I was not referring to the decomposition of the body, but release of the spirit by going Quantum, not Classical. In such a case the body is perceived as the illusion and the energy field or consciousness is real. But in the Classical world it is the other way around. They are opposed to each other.
The CTMU actually proves a panpsychic universe. However, it is received by scorn in an ever increasing materialist culture due to being notoriously difficult to understand. Adversely, if one simply reads it with an open mind, and studies the required mathematics to comprehend it, one can enter.
In such a panpsychic universe, when we are introduced to the Quantum world for the first time, it can be scary since everything is non-random. The deeper meaning to life is suddenly gleaned and one finds oneself aiming towards greater aspirations and less petty goals.
(Oct 15, 2017 06:04 PM)Leigha Wrote: In Buddhism, a central thought is that pain is inevitable, but suffering is optional. In other words, we can choose to suffer. I've always thought that idea was a bit out there, considering that we have an idea of suffering not being optional.
Being alive, for humans, entails biological and psychological needs for staying alive like acquiring food and having purpose for continuing. Including the "needs" of avoiding dangers, recovering from injury, etc. When a need is not satisfied it engenders discomfort of some degree -- ranging the gamut from trivial, mild, moderate, and extreme. [The latter degree being what "suffering" is usually taken to concern, but casual or everyday use of a word may deviate for the sake of more synonyms or avoiding monotonous usage of another word or phrase.]
However, a person can deem he/she having "essential" needs that are actually bogus in that sense. That is, if they are acquired habits, addictions, interests, recreations falling into a superfluous category yet demanding attention as if they were fundamental requirements for maintaining life. In which case any degree of ensuing suffering resulting from failing to satisfy / relieve them is misguided, from the standpoint of treating those faux needs as unavoidable or inevitable routes that one has to go down or remain on.
Note: In a case of mental or physical pain itself already being present and part of the issue (as in "needing" to diminish or be rid of), failing to resolve it is yet additional but distinct misery tacked on -- though there is the rarity of the eccentric who enjoys experiencing pain.
Quote:To stub our toe on the bed post would cause inevitable pain, but if I lay in bed all day crying over it...would that be more about me choosing to suffer? There might be another person who stubs their toe, and they cry out in pain for a few moments, and then move on with their day. I'm choosing a simple example, but this could be why some people wallow away in self pity over issues that others rise above, and still have a positive, productive life. An example would be someone who was born with no legs, but through much therapy, and new advances in technology, they wear prosthetic limbs, and run marathons. But, maybe someone else who was born without limbs, remains bed ridden, angry...wondering why they were given such a bad deal. I understand your points, but what do you think about this?
Choosing to reside in a state of dissatisfaction isn't the cause of the original discomfort or pain. It's just the add-on of generating more "suffering" from that dissatisfaction itself (granting that this second tier of suffering is not being used to satisfy a perverse enjoyment of mental pain).
Remaining in both sources of misery or getting out of one or both rests in the kinds of thought orientations (or a vacuum of any) that the applicable individual has picked-up from existing vendors of such; or which have developed and fallen out of one's own personal experiences. Exception is when agencies external to the individual are encouraging or forcing him/her to conform to their views, courses of action, therapies, concepts, schemes, principles ("It's a hopeless situation, you're entitled to feel bad about it." __ "Here's how we're going to turn this around and make your life constructive again..." __ "You're worthless, useless to the tribe / community. We're leaving you behind, throwing you into the pit, etc." __ "Shame on you for feeling sorry for yourself. You're going to change this attitude starting right now...").
That doesn't answer my question. Where does it say suffering is somehow a necessity, much less a divine necessity? Notice the dearth of citations regarding those claims about Christianity.
Quote:
Syne Wrote:Happiness is only transient when it relies on material things like the senses and bodily pleasure alone. The ability to imbue things with meaning allows one to enjoy all things. Not just "little aesthetic gratifications". There is no journey to enjoy without the ability to postulate goals to attain. How do you postulate goals without assigning significance? How can the journey toward subjectively meaningless goals be enjoyable?
There’s no limit to what can become a source of aesthetic experience.
You're like one of those little yappy, snappy dogs, aren't you?
Yet only transient.
No need to get defensive, deary. Or is there?
(Oct 17, 2017 01:48 PM)Leigha Wrote: I’ve been told I’m passive-aggressive at times, but I don’t manipulate in arguments. Lol I’d say though Syne, that your argument style seems to be that of aggression/insulting, etc…and it’s off putting. Your points are often very insightful, but sometimes, can get lost in your need to always be ''right''. Just an observation. So, I guess we’re all works in progress around here.
I’ll come back to the actual topic later! (The topic btw, is about positive growth, not necessarily ''happiness.'' One could make the argument that positive growth leads to happiness, but it actually leads to long lasting contentment and peace, which are different from happiness, which I do agree with Syne...is transient.)
Who said you were manipulating any argument? I said you were trying to shut it down.
Like I said, I'm constantly awash in views that oppose my own. This means that my views have already been tried in the free market of ideas...where I have spent time thinking through their justification. So yes, compared with views that enjoy the luxury of living largely unchallenged, mine can certainly seem more confident. And unless people become insulting to me, my intent is only to challenge them to put more thought into their own views. Some people just don't appreciate having their views seriously challenged...requiring them to actually think instead of simply parroting socially acceptable cliches. And that's fine. I'm just not interested in coddling anyone. I'm sure there are plenty of places people can receive that...like their carefully curated social media feeds.
I was only responding to SS bringing up happiness, so talk to her about that.
Happiness, contentment, and peace are choices. If you don't think so, that's only because you have not made the choice and are allowing circumstances to dictate your mood.
I agree that none of those are necessarily growth, but realizing they are a choice is.
That doesn't answer my question. Where does it say suffering is somehow a necessity, much less a divine necessity? Notice the dearth of citations regarding those claims about Christianity.
The crux of Christianity is about suffering and 'redemption.' Jesus himself sacrificed his life, again...redemptive suffering. In Islam, Muhammad tells his followers that it's honorable to become a martyr for the faith. Likewise, the Abrahamic faiths all have that as a tenet. Suffering and even dying for the faith is seen as noble and redemptive.
If it's not a necessity, then someone should alert all the people who consider themselves blessed and 'better off' if they submit to martyrdom. Too late for all those who have already lost their lives ''defending'' their beliefs.
Regarding the comment about manipulation...didn't you post this?
Just because you don't, or can't be bothered to, have the wherewithal to support your views, doesn't compel anything of me. And "let's not quarrel" is just a thought-terminating cliche:
"Sometimes they are used in a deliberate attempt to shut down debate, manipulate others to think a certain way, or dismiss dissent. However, some people repeat them, even to themselves, out of habit, conditioning or as a defense mechanism." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clich%C3%A...lich.C3.A9
In stride with this thread title, I feel like I'm growing because of everyone's input.
Oct 17, 2017 04:15 AM
![[Image: The-Endless-Delight-of-Delirium-wm-960x960.jpg]](http://hayleyrobertsphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/The-Endless-Delight-of-Delirium-wm-960x960.jpg)
