POST STUFF
|
 by NoblemanPyrrho, Level 38
Last updated at October 2, 2009, 4:20 pm
|
|
http://mortalseraphim.xanga.com/
look out, socrates! there's a new philosopher on da block!
Starting from the beginning; there is no need to live. This means there is no need for anything that sustains your life. There are, however, human, physical preferences. Humans naturally have a preference, for example, to eat. Because of the fact that you have no needs, you should just live based on your preferences. I'll call this plan for life "Style P".
In order to have a perfectly logical thought, you must be void of all desire. Desire, preference, keeps you from making a clean thought. In order to reach this perfect thought, which I will call "Final Enlightenment", you must rid yourself of desire. In order to rid yourself of desire, you must have the desire to do so. This makes it seem impossible, but because you are human, you have a way around this. Once you have rid yourself of all desire, except the desire to rid yourself of desire, you've reached Enlightenment. You do still have, though, one desire(the desire to rid yourself of this last desire). This is where humanity comes into play. As a human, you value certain things over enlightenment, because of evolution. Through your life, you can rid yourself of these evolutionary desires. In order to reach Final Enlightenment, though, you will realize they are very useful. Once you are about to die, you will naturally forget all that is unimportant to you, only remembering the things that you naturally find most important (most likely the desire to live). Because of the fact that you've trained yourself to not have these desires, just before death, you'll have no desire what so ever. You will then die, and you will have achieved Final Enlightenment.
Because of the fact that in the logical Style P life, you live off of preferences, you would most likely prefer to reach Final Enlightenment. You will follow Style P until you have no preferences but the one to be Enlightened. Once you are about to die, you'll reach Final Enlightenment as was shown above. Because a Style P life is a logical one (you realize you've no need for anything, you just do what you prefer), and the path of Final Enlightenment is preferable, the only logical course to take in life is Style P into Final Enlightenment. This means that the meaning to life must logically be to reach Final Enlightenment through Style P.
There is, however, the point that in order to achieve Final Enlightenment, you must be living, and to be living, you need things like food. This would seem to stop the theory from the beginning, but things like food are not a necessity. Through the path to Enlightenment, many have been able to fully self sustain themselves by controlling energy itself. It is most often called Qi, Chi, or Ki. Of course this is theoretical, but logical as well.
All matter in the universe is energy (String Theory), and because the entire universe is one mass (even space is filled with dark matter), you are one with everything. The entire universe is what you are, you just control and observe from what you would call your own body directly. It's a matter of perspective. If you realize this well enough, you can control anything physical. To realize your control over your extended self (the rest of the universe), you should follow the path to Enlightenment. By following the Style P path to Enlightenment, you will begin to come to realization.
If you can supply your body with the nutrients that it needs simply through your control of energy(which came about through Style P path to Enlightenment), things like food and other material needs are no longer needs at all. This means that Style P holds up. The meaning to life is to reach Final Enlightenment.
Buddhism, in it's purest form, is exactly what was described above. It is an open path through life that ends in a release of all desire, and perfect thought, Enlightenment. Buddhism now has been warped by a slow decline in the understanding of the process to reach Enlightenment. Hinduism may actually be a broken off version of Buddhism, rather then the other way around. Hinduism has all the characteristics of a Buddhism which has been warped over thousands of years. The idea of god is used to explain things that aren't understood about the process. If Buddhism wasn't recorded until Siddhartha Gautama began to teach it, that would mean gaps could form in the process to Enlightenment, and those gaps would need to be filled with myth.
Report Post
26 comments
0 replies to breadman (hide)
0 replies to breadman (show)
Permalink
Quote
Post Reply
Reply to this comment
Snikkums Oct 2, 2009 at 5:55 pm
+2 votes
So instead of needing food, you need energy. I fail to see how converting from food to energy stops the "need" that bolloxes up the logic train. Not that the logic train has any basis in logic to begin with.
I like and have studied buddhism, but as presented it's no less arbitrary than any other philosophy or illogical than any religion. This is the first I've seen a case for it's cycle involve evolution and string theory, which seems odd to me. No need to justify buddhism using modern science. Too, using evolution or physics at all leads to justifying counterarguments of desire as an evolutionary trait, or a deterministic Universe, or at least discussion of whether free will can trump determinism (or string theory, or whatever the piece of borrowed physics is). All in all, not the best idea to open those cans of worms.
In summation, the best of buddhism is nonmaterialism (in moderation), mental peace, and respect for other life. A more mystical transcendentalism. But devotion to the idea of enlightenment and stopping the cycle of rebirth is too fantastical to get into, for me at least.
I like and have studied buddhism, but as presented it's no less arbitrary than any other philosophy or illogical than any religion. This is the first I've seen a case for it's cycle involve evolution and string theory, which seems odd to me. No need to justify buddhism using modern science. Too, using evolution or physics at all leads to justifying counterarguments of desire as an evolutionary trait, or a deterministic Universe, or at least discussion of whether free will can trump determinism (or string theory, or whatever the piece of borrowed physics is). All in all, not the best idea to open those cans of worms.
In summation, the best of buddhism is nonmaterialism (in moderation), mental peace, and respect for other life. A more mystical transcendentalism. But devotion to the idea of enlightenment and stopping the cycle of rebirth is too fantastical to get into, for me at least.
ARCTURAS Oct 3, 2009 at 12:17 am
+1 votes
CAPSCAPSCAPSCAPSCAPSCAPSCAPSCAPSCAPSCAPSCAPSCAPSCAPSCAPSCAPSCAPS
DillyDally Oct 2, 2009 at 6:01 pm
+1 votes
What kinda noob still uses xanga? Get with the times buddhi.
raynor Oct 2, 2009 at 8:11 pm
+1 votes
sorry but i prefer logic that isn't based off ideas and theories. this entire thing seems flawed from the start when you state:
'Starting from the beginning; there is no need to live. This means
there is no need for anything that sustains your life. There are,
however, human, physical preferences. Humans naturally have a
preference, for example, to eat. Because of the fact that you have no
needs, you should just live based on your preferences.'
primal instinct and emotional desire are being combined here. the need to eat is a primal instinct expressed through emotion (to an extent). logically, i agree with your statement that there is no need to live (to an extent), but going off organisms inherent, primal design that is; feed, reproduce, die, i find that your overall statement is somewhat wrong. there is a need to live, and its only for the 3 reasons i previously stated. my conclusion from this is that you are actually wrong in believing that humans should live off preference because there is no need.
'Starting from the beginning; there is no need to live. This means
there is no need for anything that sustains your life. There are,
however, human, physical preferences. Humans naturally have a
preference, for example, to eat. Because of the fact that you have no
needs, you should just live based on your preferences.'
primal instinct and emotional desire are being combined here. the need to eat is a primal instinct expressed through emotion (to an extent). logically, i agree with your statement that there is no need to live (to an extent), but going off organisms inherent, primal design that is; feed, reproduce, die, i find that your overall statement is somewhat wrong. there is a need to live, and its only for the 3 reasons i previously stated. my conclusion from this is that you are actually wrong in believing that humans should live off preference because there is no need.
Lesane Oct 2, 2009 at 9:11 pm
+1 votes
So basically, the only point of living like this is so you no longer have any desires or preferences when you die? You're basically going to spend your entire life getting ready to die? Seems kinda depressing to me. I personally don't mind being a slave to desires, you only desire things because they make you feel good anyway.
A furious nerd makes a blog to use as his outlet for his various prejudices and heated self-loathing. Oh and sometimes he'll talk about the Wonderful World of Warcraft.
29 Subscribers
Started April 5, 2008
99 Total Entries
99 Total Entries
THE SPOTLIGHT
Arrested over tip, Hassan terrorist, Chuck, Avatar…
|
|
1 of 9 |
Your Comment is being posted. Please wait...