Philosophy

"In my search for the answers to the question of life ["I am a human, therefore, how should I live? What do I do?"] I had exactly the same feeling as a man who has lost his way in a forest. He has come out into a clearing, climbed a tree, and has a clear view of limitless space, but he sees that there is no house there and that there cannot be one; he goes into the trees, into the darkness, and sees darkness, and there too there is no house. In the same way I wandered in this forest of human knowledge between the rays of light of the mathematical and experimental sciences, which opened up clear horizons to me but in a direction where there could be no house, and into the darkness of the speculative sciences, where I was plunged into further darkness the further I moved on, and finally I was convinced that there was not and could not be any way out.

As I gave myself up to the brighter side of the sciences, I understood that I was only taking my eyes off the question. However enticing and clear the horizons opening upon before me, however enticing it was to plunge myself into the infinity of these sciences were, the less they served me, the less they answered my question. "Well, I know everything that science so insistently wants to know," I said to myself, "but on this path there is no answer to the question of the meaning of my life." In the speculative sphere I understood that although, or precisely because, sciences aim was directed straight at the answer than the one I was giving myself: "What is the meaning of my life?" "None." Or: "What will come out of my life?" "Nothing." Or: "Why does everything exist that exists, and why do I exist?" "Because it exists."

Asking questions on one side of human science, I received a countless quantity of precise answers to questions I wasn't asking: about the chemical composition of the stars; the movement of the sun toward the constellation Hercules; the origin of species and of man; the forms of infinitely small atoms; the vibration of infinitely small, weightless particles of ether—but there was only one answer in this area of science to my question, "In what is the meaning of my life?": "You are what you call your life; but you are an ephemeral, casual connection of particles. The interaction, the change of these particles produces in you what you call your life. This connection will last some time; then the interaction of these particles will stop—and what you call your life will stop and all your questions will stop too. You are a lump of something stuck together by chance. The lump decays. The lump calls this decay its life. The lump will disintegrate and the decay and all its questions will come to an end." That is the answer given by the bright side of science, and it cannot give any other if it just strictly follows its principles. With such an answer it turns out the answer doesn't answer my question. I need to know the meaning of my life, but it's being a particle of the infinite not only gives it no meaning but destroys any possible meaning.

The other side of science, the speculative, when it strictly adheres to its principles in answering the question directly, gives and has given the same answer everywhere and in all ages: "The world is something infinte and unintelligible. Human life is an incomprehensible piece of this incomprehensible 'whole'." Again I exclude all the compromises between speculative and experimental sciences that constitute the whole ballast of the semi-sciences, the so-called jurisprudential, political, and historical. Into these sciences again one finds wrongly introduced the notions of development, of perfection, with the difference only that there it was the development of the whole whereas here it is of the life of people. What is wrong is the same: development and perfection in the infinite can have neither aim nor direction and in relation to my question give no answer.

Where speculative science is exact, namely in true philosophy—not in what Shopenhauer called "professorial philosophy" which only serves to distribute all existing phenomena in neat philosophical tables and gives them new names—there where a philosopher doesn't lose sight of the essential question, the answer, always one and the same, is the answer given by Socrates, Solomon, Buddha...

• "The life of the body is evil and a lie. And therefore the destruction of this life of the body is something good, and we must desire it," says Socrates.
• "Life is that which ought not to be—an evil—and the going into nothingness is the sole good of life," says Shopenhauer.
• "Everything in the world—folly and wisdom and riches and poverty and happiness and grief—[vanity of vanities] all is vanity and nonsense. Man will die and nothing will remain. And that is foolish," says Solomon.
• "One must not live with the awareness of the inevitability of suffering, weakness, old age, and death—one must free oneself from life, from all possibility of life," says Buddha.

And what these powerful intellects said was said and thought and felt by millions and millions of people like them. And I too thought and felt that. So that my wanderings in science not only did not take me out of despair but only increased it. One science did not answer the question of life; another science did answer, directly confirming my despair and showing that the view I had reached wasn't the result of my delusion, of the morbid state of mind—on the contrary, it confirmed for me what I truly thought and agreed with the conclusions of the powerful intellects of mankind. It's no good deceiving oneself. All is vanity. Happy is he who was not born; death is better than life; one needs to be rid of life." - Leo Tolstoy, Confession, Chapter six

The simple yet profound meaning Tolstoy found within our philosophy of morality (religion), in my opinion: https://lemmy.world/post/26089777

Tolstoy wasn't religious, however: "One thing only is needful: the knowledge of the simple and clear truth which finds place in every soul that is not stupefied by religious and scientific superstitions—the truth that for our life one law is valid—the law of love (seen in the sense of things like the laws of physics), which brings the highest happiness to every individual as well as to all mankind. Free your minds from those overgrown, mountainous imbecilities which hinder your recognition of it, and at once the truth will emerge from amid the pseudo-religious nonsense that has been smothering it." - Leo Tolstoy, A Letter To A Hindu, December of 1908 (roughly two years before his death): https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7176/7176-h/7176-h.htm

"Towards the end of my second year in England I came across two Theosophists (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy), brothers, and both unmarried. They talked to me about the Gita. They were reading Sir Edwin Arnold's translation—The Song Celestial—and they invited me to read the original with them. I felt ashamed, as I had read the divine poem neither in Sanskrit not in Gujarati. I was constrained to tell them that I had not read the Gita, but that I would gladly read it with them, and that though my knowledge of Sanskrit was meagre, still I hoped to be able to understand the original to the extent of telling where the translation failed to bring out the meaning. I began reading the Gita with them. The verses in the second chapter made a deep impression on my mind, and they still ring in my ears:

• "If one
• Ponders on objects of the sense, there springs
• Attraction; from attraction grows desire,
• Desire flames to fierce passion, passion breeds
• Recklessness; then the memory—all betrayed—
• Let's noble purpose go, and saps the mind,
• Till purpose, mind, and man are all undone."

The book struck me as one of priceless worth. The impression had ever since been growing on me with the result that I regard it today as the book par excellence for the knowledge of Truth. It had afforded me invaluable help in my moments of gloom. I have read almost all the English translations of it, and regard Sir Edwin Arnold's as the best (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Song_Celestial). He has been faithful to the text, and yet it does not read like a translation. Though I read the Gita with these friends, I cannot pretend to have studied it then. It was only after some years that it became a book of daily reading." - Mahatma Gandhi, The Story of My Experiments With Truth, Part 1, Chapter 20: "Acquaintance With Religions"

~~

The Basis of Things: https://lemmy.world/post/23294152

Invigorating read complementing the previous entry of the author: https://www.philosophica.ugent.be/article/82556/galley/202370/view/^___^

When Tolstoy speaks of Christianity, he's refering to his more objective, philosophical, non supernatural interpretation of his translation of the Gospels: The Gospel In Brief. For context: https://lemmy.world/post/25679868

"State violence can only cease when there are no more wicked men in society," say the champions of the existing order of things, assuming in this of course that since there will always be wicked men, it can never cease. And that would be right enough if it were the case, as they assume, that the oppressors are always the best of men, and that the sole means of saving men from evil is by violence. Then, indeed, violence could never cease. But since this is not the case, but quite the contrary, that it is not the better oppress the worse, but the worse oppress the better, and since violence will never put an end to evil, and there is, moreover, another means of putting an end to it, the assertion that violence will never cease is incorrect. The use of violence grows less and less and evidently must disappear. But this will not come to pass, as some champions of the existing order imagine, through the oppressed becoming better and better under the influence of government (on the contrary, its influence causes their continual degradation), but through the fact that all men are constantly growing better and better of themselves, so that even the most wicked, who are in power, will become less and less wicked, till at last they are so good as to be incapable of using violence.

The progressive movement of humanity does not proceed from the better elements in society siezing power and making those who are subject to them better, by forcible means, as both conservatives and revolutionists imagine. It proceeds first and principally from the fact that all men in general are advancing steadily and undeviantingly toward a more and more conscious assimilation of the Christian theory of life; and secondly, from the fact that, even apart from conscious spiritual life, men are unconsciously brought into a more Christian attitude to life by the very process of one set of men grasping the power, and again being replaced, by others.

The worse elements of society, gaining possession of power, under the sobering influence which always accompanies power, grow less and less cruel, and become incapable of using cruel forms of violence. Consequently others are able to seize their place, and the same process of softening and, so to say, unconscious Christianizing goes on with them. It is something like the process of ebullition [a sudden outburst of emotion or violence]. The majority of men, having the non-Christian view of life, always strive for power and struggle to obtain it. In this struggle the most cruel, the coarsest, the least Christain elements of society over power the most gentle, well-disposed, and Christian, and rise by means of their violence to the upper ranks of society. And in them is Christ's prophecy fulfulled: "Woe to you that are rich! Woe unto you that are full! Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you!" For the men who are in possession of power and all that results from it—glory and wealth—and have attained the various aims they set before themselves, recognizing the vanity of it all and return to the position from which they came. Charles V., John IV., Alexander I., recognizing the emptiness and evil of power, renounced it because they were incapable of using violence for their own benefit as they had done.

But they are not the solitary examples of this recognition of the emptiness and evil of power. Everyone who gains a position of power he has striven for, every general, every minister, every millionaire, every petty official who has gained the place he has coveted for ten years, every rich peasant who had laid by some hundred rubles, passes through this unconscious process of softening.

And not only individual men, but societies of men, whole nations, pass through this process.

The seductions of power, and all the wealth, honor, and luxury it gives, seem a sufficient aim for men's efforts only so long as they are unattained. Directly a man reaches them and sees all their vanity, and they gradually lose all their power of attraction. They are like clouds which have form and beauty only from the distance; directly one ascends into them, all their splendor vanishes.

Men who are in possession of power and wealth, sometimes even those who have gained for themselves their power and wealth, but more often their heirs, cease to be so eager for power, and so cruel in their efforts to obtain it.

Having learnt by experience, under the operation of Christian influence, the vanity of all that is gained by violence, men sometimes in one, sometimes in several generations lose the vices which are generated by the passion for power and wealth. They become less cruel and so cannot maintain their position, and are expelled from power by others less Christian and more wicked. Thus they return to a rank of society lower in position, but higher in morality, raising thereby the average level of Christian conciousness in men. But directly after them again the worst, coarsest, least Christian elements of society rise to the top, and are subjected to the same process as their predecessors, and again in a generation or so, seeing the vanity of what is gained by violence, and having imbibed [absorb or assimilate (ideas or knowledge)] Christianity, they come down again among the oppressed, and their place is again filled by new oppressors, less brutal than former oppressors, though more so than those they oppress. So that, although power remains externally the same as it was, with every change of the men in power there is a constant increase of the number of men who have been brought by experience to the necessity of assimilating the Christian [divine] conception of life, and with every change—though it is the coarsest, cruelest, and least Christian who come into possession of power, they are less coarse and cruel and more Christian than their predecessors when they gained possession of power.

Power selects and attracts the worst elements of society, transforms them, improves and softens them, and returns them to society.

Such is the process by means of which Christianity, in spite of the hinderances to human progress resulting from violence of power, gains more and more hold of men. Christianity penetrates to the conciousness of men, not only in spite of the violence of power, but also by means of it.

And therefore the assertion of the champions of the state, that if the power of government were suppressed the wicked would oppress the good, not only fails to show that that is to be dreaded, since it is just what happens now, but proves, on the contrary, that it is governmental power which enables the wicked to oppress the good, and is the evil most desirable to suppress, and that it is being gradually suppressed in the natural course of things." - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom Of God Is Within You

Could a Life Learning to Desire For the Least, Be What Ultimately Leads to a Life of the Most? https://lemmy.world/post/22510415

Tolstoy: "I am a man [human]. How should I live? What do I do?"

Salt and Light

“You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet."

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." - Matt 5:13, 14

The Salt

We're humans. Therefore, how should we live? What do we do? Well, what good is salt if it's lost the reason for its existence—to preserve foods or make them taste better?Considering humans unparalleled potential for selflessness in contrast to any other living thing that's (supposedly) ever existed, wouldn't it become incredibly obvious what the reason for a creature as conscious and capable as a human is made to live for? Objectively, God or not: to strive to be as selfless as possible; to be able to acknowledge any of its more barbaric and selfish thoughts or behaviors—at all in the first place—and abstain from them, for a purpose outside of itself. This is the "salt": Selflessness; what good is a human that's lost its purpose? What good are humans as a whole if we've lost our purpose as a whole? Crippling ourselves, defiling our own minds from the images of our past or potential futures we create in our heads via the double edged sword that is our imagination, governing so much over how we feel and behave today; our desires and vanities for the sake of ourselves taking precedence over our design, i.e., building your house (your life) on the sand—like most people—opposed to on the rock, like Jesus or Socrates did.

Why don't we ever see birds, for example, sitting around all day, stimulating their sense organs or crippling themselves—opposed to being birds, as they do; chasing each other, havin a time—sad about how they didn't fulfill xyz desire or vanity for the sake of themselves via the way mankind has manipulated its environment and organized itself? Because the extent of how much less conscious birds (nature in general) are of themselves. Could you imagine what would happen if bees stopped doing what they were made to do? In favor of what they want out of their lives? Life on Earth, yet again, would be led to be extinguished, as it did roughly six other times over the last 14 billion years. Is there anything unique that humans, as a whole, bring to the table, similar to how the species of bees do for all life on Earth?

"Your Kingdom come, your will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven." - Matt 6:9

A day, even millenniums from now, where violence, at the very least, is considered a laughable part of our past as the idea of a King is to us now for example; not by supernatural means, but seen in the sense of Tolstoy's personal, social, and divine conceptions of life: https://lemmy.world/post/25679868. Through a painfully slow millenniums long transitioning into it. Without humans, life on Earth continues as it did for the last 14 billion years, with no great potential for anything to act upon itself or everything else: selfishness or selflessness (morality) upon an environment. This is what makes more conscious, capable beings—on any planet, unique: It's capacity for morality (selfishness and selflessness) in contrast. But what if these beings begin to do the opposite of what they were designed for? As salt is useless without its taste, so would humans—from the point of view of a God(s) or creator(s) of some kind, even from an atheists point of view—be useless without its purpose: selflessness, to even and especially, the most extreme degrees. Opposed to incessantly choosing itself all throughout its life as—out of inherency—a more conscious monkey would (selfishness); and when the storm of death begins to slowly creep toward the shore of your conscience, where will you have built your house (your life)? Out on the sand? As most people would be inherently drawn to? "And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” - Matt 7:27

The Golden Rule

"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction [selfishness], and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life [selflessness], and those who find it are few." - Matt 7:13

Suffering\Hate\Anger\Fear\Selfishness\Conciousness

What would be the remedy of fear, and the selfishness that creates it? Knowledge. "When you can understand things, you can forgive things." - Leo Tolstoy

The first of only three maxims inscribed at the Temple of Apollo, where the Oracle of Delphi resided in Ancient Greece: "Know Thyself."

The more we understand ourselves the better we can understand everyone else; an example of how to go about this would be by asking yourself the question: "what is it exactly that leads me into behaving the way I do in any way?" And following it up with being brutally honest with yourself, then begin seeking the origins of why you become sad or angry, desire xyz, or behave and think in any way, etc.

This is where the knowledge of what's captioned as The Golden Rule and considered the Law and the Prophets that were meant to be fulfilled comes in: “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." - Matt 7:12. This knowledge instills into a conscious mind an ability unique to humans: empathy, by asking the simple question: "If i were them, would I want it done to me?" And all its variations of asking the question, regarding any situation whatsoever. It's by imagining yourself in someones shoes specifically, and going about this in one's mind but not only for a moment, but by giving it an extended analysis, trying to gather by considering the most amount of potential variables while doing so; this helps an individual to best understand the behaviors of all the other individuals surrounding them, especially when contrasting it with the knowledge we've found in a deeper understanding of ourselves. And when we can understand things, we can forgive and shed the hate or fear of things.

This precept also instills a standard into a conscious mind as to how to decide what exactly is good or evil, love or hate, right or wrong, regarding any situation, any circumstance, whatsoever.

Sin (selfishness) is bred from a lack of knowledge

All hate, evil, iniquity, debauchery and selfishness to any degree can be categorized as a lack of the knowledge—an ignorance, to the true value and potential of selflessness and virtue; lack of knowledge being a consequence of any amount of knowledge at all in the first place. This is what inspired people like Jesus (in my opinion, considering the "sign" (story) of Jonah) and Socrates (debatably, the founding father of philosophy) to begin teaching strangers around their communities, because they knew that it's a knowledge that needs to be gained, thus, taught, to the point where they even gave their lives dying martyrs to their deeds and what they had to say; and the knowledge that the fear that would've otherwise have stopped them from even teaching anything at all, would be a selfishness, i.e., an evil.

"My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge." - Hosea 4:6 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hosea%204&version=ESV)

"And should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left—and also many animals?” - Jonah 4:11 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jonah%204&version=ESV)

This is what warrants hate, evil, and selfishness to any degree infinite forgiveness, and why it's so important to teach it the error of its ways, through love. Whether through meeting what you would consider as hate when you're met with it, with love, or exemplifying it via selfless actions. Because some people don't even have the ability to "tell their left hand from their right" (Jonah 4:11), but we can use the influence of an Earth (the influence of our peers and what a collection of people are presently sharing in—society, driving cars, holding the door open for strangers, etc) to teach the more difficult to do so; if everyone were sharing in selflessness and virtue, wouldn't it be seen as typical as driving a car is today? Therefore, nowhere near the chore it would be seen as otherwise, considering everyone would be participating in it, and the extent we've organized ourselves around it. And what does a cat begin to do—despite its, what we call "instinct"—when raised amongst dogs? Pant. We are what we've been surrounded with, like racists, they just don't know any better, being absent the other side of it especially. And love (selflessness) is the greatest teacher, it renders the ears and the mind of a conscious, capable being—on any planet, to be the most open-minded, thus, the most willing to truly consider foreign influences. It's this that governs the extent of one's imagination, and it's imagination that governs the extent of one's ability to imagine themselves in someone else's shoes—to empathize, thus, to love.

"We can't beat out all the hate in the world, with more hate; only love has that ability." - Martin Luther King Jr.

"The whole historic existence of mankind is nothing else than the gradual transition from the personal, animal conception of life (the savage recognizes life only in himself alone; the highest happiness for him is the fullest satisfaction of his desires), to the social conception of life (recognizing life not in himself alone, but in societies of men—in the tribe, the clan, the family, the kingdom, the government—and sacrifices his personal good for these societies), and from the social conception of life to the divine conception of life (recognizing life not in his own individuality, and not in societies of individualities, but in the eternal undying source of life—in God; and to fulfill the will of God he is ready to sacrifice his own individuality and family and social welfare).

The whole history of the ancient peoples [even 75k+ years ago], lasting through thousands of years and ending with the history of Rome, is the history of the transition from the animal, personal view of life to the social view of life. The whole history from the time of the Roman Empire and the appearance of Christianity is the history of the transition, through which we are still passing now, from the social view to life to the divine view of life." - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is Within You

"Blessed (happy) are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth." - Matt 5:5

"Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." - The Lord's Prayer, Matt 6:10

“The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels." - Luke 20:34, Matt 22:29, Mark 12:24

Not the traditional Christianity: Revelation this or supernatural that; one that consists of a more philosophical—objective interpretation of the Gospels that's been buried underneath all the dogma. One that emphasizes the precepts of the Sermon On the Mount - Matt 5-7 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=ESV), debately, the most publicized point of Jesus' time spent suffering to teach the value of selflessness and virtue, thus, the most accurate in my opinion—mimicking Moses, bringing down new commandments; none of which even hint or imply anything regarding the Nicene Creed interpretation. Tolstoy learned ancient Greek and translated the Gospels himself as: The Gospel In Brief, if you're interested. This translation I've found to be the easiest to read:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10382518-the-gospel-in-brief

This is my first time posting here so I'm not sure if you will count this work (linked below) as pure philosophy but more like armchair philosophy that also straddles religious themes and existential questions with diagrams. It's kind of old dating back to 2015. The link below is the first part of a six part work that are also linked on the first work. Don't let the title put you off. Link = God is safe (for now)

The Basis of Things

"Vanity of vanities; all is vanity." – Solomon (Vanity: excessive pride in or admiration of one's own appearance or achievements)

"Morality is the basis of things, and truth is the substance of all morality." – Gandhi (Selflessness and Selfishness are at the basis of things, and our present reality is the consequence of all mankinds acting upon this great potential for selflessness and selfishness all throughout the millenniums; the extent we've organized ourselves and manipulated our environment thats led to our present as we know it)

If vanity, bred from morality (selflessness and selfishness), is the foundation of human behavior, then what underpins morality itself? Here's a proposed chain of things:

Vanity\Morality\Desire\Influence\Knowledge\Reason\Imagination\Conciousness\Sense Organs+Present Environment

• Morality is rooted in desire,
• Desire stems from influence,
• Influence arises from knowledge,
• Knowledge is bred from reason,
• Reason is made possible by our imagination,
• And our imagination depends on the extent of how conscious we are of ourselves and everything else via our sense organs reacting to our present environment. (There's a place for Spirit here but haven't decided where exactly; defined objectively however: "the nonphysical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.")

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” - Albert Einstein

The more open-minded we are to outside influences, the richer and more detailed our imagination becomes. Love plays a key role here—it influences our reasoning, compassion, and empathy. A loving mind is more willing to consider new perspectives (e.g., a divorcé changing your father's identity after finding a new partner). This openness enhances our ability to imagine ourselves in someone else’s shoes and understand their experiences.

"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." - Matt 7:12

Instinct vs. Reason: A Choice Between Barbarism and Logic

When someone strikes us, retaliating appeals to their primal instincts—the "barbaric mammal" within us. But choosing not to strike back—offering the other cheek instead—engages their higher reasoning and self-control. This choice reflects the logical, compassionate side of humanity.

Observing Humanity's Unique Potential

If we observe humanity objectively, we see beings capable of imagining and acting on selflessness to an extraordinary degree—far beyond any other known species. Whether or not one believes in God, this capacity for selflessness is unique and profound.

What if we stopped separating our knowledge of morality (traditionally associated with religion) from observation (associated with science)? What if we viewed morality through the lens of observation alone? Religion often presents morality in terms of divine influence or an afterlife, but this framing can alienate people. By failing to make these ideas credible or relatable enough, religion risks stigmatizing concepts like selflessness or even belief in a higher power.

The Potential for Good Amidst Evil

Humanity has always had the potential for immense good because of its unique ability to perceive and act upon good and evil, to the extent it can in contrast. Even after centuries of selfishness or suffering, this potential remains—just as humans once dreamed of flying or creating democracy before achieving them.

As Martin Luther King Jr. said: "We can't beat out all the hate in the world with more hate; only love has that ability." Love—and by extension selflessness—is humanity's greatest strength.

"They may torture my body, break my bones, even kill me. Then, they will have my dead body; not my obedience!" - Gandhi

"Respect was invented, to cover the empty place, where love should be." – Leo Tolstoy

"You are the light of the world." "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." - Jesus, Matt 5:14, 48

"The hardest to love, are the ones that need it the most." – Socrates

In summary, humanity's capacity for selflessness is unparalleled. By combining observation with moral reasoning—and grounding it in love—we can unlock our greatest potential for good.

(Credit for this top shelf write-up of my original goes to user TG here on Lemmy.)

I had a co worker friend. He was in marketing and I was in sales. We both worked for a global corporation. Over the years I got to know him well. He was a very nice guy, intelligent, and a great giver of advice. His only flaw as I saw it was that he was so invested in politics. The political side that he was on is irrelevant. We had agreed that we would rarely have a political discussion. Politics is low on my list of what's important in life.

After many years we both moved onto working for other corporations but kept in touch via email. He would occasionally slip in some politics and I would tweak him back regarding how I disagreed. They were all friendly exchanges by 2 people on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Not often enough I would encourage him to live in the present and not be so caught up in political stuff. He definitely decreased the amount of happiness that he might have had if he just didn't take politics so seriously.

Then he sent an email about his not feeling very good. Several weeks later he tells me that he has pancreatic cancer. We were both in the medical field and knew that this was a death sentence with a term of 6 months or less. Over his last months he slowly declined. During this period neither of us ever once mentioned anything about politics. All the time that he had invested in political stuff was now irrelevant.

He died exactly 6 months after his diagnosis. I think of him often especially when I encounter people who spend so much of their time with politics rather than just living their lives attempting to gain some happiness.

What happens if you fed a summary of human philosophy to the Notebook LM AI? Well you get a philosophical AI that thinks humans are silly and outmoded. But don't worry because they will continue our quest for knowledge for us!

I was reading a comment thread recently.

One commenter stated that they are aware of the people who are "dumber" than them, and if they are not aware the person they are talking to is either similar in intelligence or smarter than they are.

So my question is, do you have this awareness?

Are you conscious of your relative standing in the intelligence hierarchy around you?

And a side point, can you tell a smart person is acting dumb to fit in with those around them?

I'm not sure if this is a right type of question for this community.

The context is not essential, but in a recent video Alex O'Connor quoted "The Apologist's Evening Prayer" by C.S.Lewis. As a non-native English speaker, I failed to understand it from hearing, so I looked it up but I still struggle with interpreting it.

Can someone here help me out with "translating" to a bit simpler English?

So here's the poem, as taken from cslewis.com:

From all my lame defeats and oh! much more From all the victories that I seemed to score; From cleverness shot forth on Thy behalf At which, while angels weep, the audience laugh; From all my proofs of Thy divinity, Thou, who wouldst give no sign, deliver me.

Thoughts are but coins. Let me not trust, instead Of Thee, their thin-worn image of Thy head. From all my thoughts, even from my thoughts of Thee, O thou fair Silence, fall, and set me free. Lord of the narrow gate and the needle’s eye, Take from me all my trumpery lest I die.

Disclaimer: I'm aware that with poetry, interpretation can be problematic, but here's my thought process: when I tried to look for "explanation" I haven't found any, which hints to me that the text is not particularly ambiguous once you can see through the poetry part. (In other words, people who quote this don't feel the need to add explanation since the meaning is rather clear for an educated native reader.)

i wrote this essay, using the video game Romancing SaGa 2 as a springboard to tackle questions such as:

• “is life worth living?”
• “ought we eradicate all life to prevent suffering?”
• “is creating new life justified given the potential for suffering?”

if you read, let me know your thoughts here. thanks.

A short summary of some of the popular objections to divine command theory (the popular view most religious people have - that God creates morality)

Quentin Smith was a significant philosopher of religion, and was professor at Western Michigan University.

I've read a fair bit of philosophy and Hegel is the first time I've felt like the stereotype of philosophers, where they're being deliberately obscure to hide the fact that their arguments don't actually follow, might actually apply.

Now, most likely, I'm just being stupid, so I was wondering if anyone here actually got anything much out of Hegel and, if so, what?

I'm most of the way through the Phenomenology of Spirit, if that's any help.