Guest wrote: ... and there is no seeking "the truth"
Of course there is a seeking of "the truth". However, that doesn't mean that you'll find it.
Guest wrote: ... The concepts of "truth", "freedom", "humanity" and "justice" are fictions.
This is very interesting because the difference between the common definition of "ideal" ("satisfying one's conception of what is perfect; most suitable") and "fiction" ("a belief or statement that is false, but that is often held to be true because it is expedient to do so") is- as you can see- very subtle. The only difference I could see though-but that's my personal perspective- is that ideals are things you strive to achieve. So I cannot agree with you. Yet.
A question to Guest: You talk about women and democrats as slaves. Do you mean that anyone who is subordinate to an authority is a slave or that anyone who is by nature subordinate to an authority is a slave?
You (both of you) talk a lot about truth. Wouldn't you agree though, that there is a difference between "the truth" of birds flying in the sky the day JFK was killed and "the truth" that when MLK Jr. was shot there was a universal sorrow? Just as "guest" said, the expression "universal" is extremely powerful, and in many ways impossible to use other than to express your own opinion on how important something is. To say that there is a "universal sorrow" would not be, correct or "true".
The truth of birds flying in the sky is concrete (as long as you determine that the material world is real), while a feeling is very abstract. It's hard to find a "one truth" in a feeling, since it's so hard even to say what a feeling is and why it's there at all. I guess to find a truth, you must discover all the reasons that lead to it. And that is, according to me, impossible.
Are all truths important at all? Can you find a truth in valuing that (the importance of a truth) as well?
Hawkins wrote: ... what is free about any individual is the "WILL". This is the first thing that allows us to be free. The capacity to think. The capacity to be rational. The capacity to choose the life we want to live. The capacity to transform ourselves. The capacity to realize how profound our moment to moment experiences can be, the capacity to change all future experiences and outcomes. All this is possible because of the WILL, the eternal consiousness that lies within us.
This is not a bad thought at all. But this would imply that all other living beings on this earth are not free? How is that possible? Would you agree to reformulate and summarize what you just said to "freedom is to be able to do all that we by nature have been given the opportunities to do"?
I'd also like to make you notice that this definition of the expression "free"
To be free is to make a conscious effort to be free
is not really a definition of it at all.
Guest wrote: There is no humanity -- only individuals. The concept of humanity is a religion -- it's Christianity without Jesus Christ, similar to humanism. It is just a scam to make you feel like you are indebted to those around you (and those no longer living and yet to live) when in fact there is no rational reason for you to care about anyone but yourself (or anything that does not increase your pleasure, so having a significant other can be justified only if doing so does not limit your power).
Helping people gives you both pleasure and power, right? I think you realize that most people we refer to as powerful are that partly because of all the people that support him/her. However, there's a difference between having strength and having power. Today, possibly because of democracy (the "majority model" system) these two rarely meet. If you don't understand my point, please ask.
Hawkins wrote: No one will follow your philosophy because they realize that the human condition is not about suffering and being miserable.
What "guest" is talking about is not about suffering and being miserable. What he says might not be how you would want things to be like, but some things are actually inevitably true. This is not sad, quite the opposite. You have to realize some things that simply are, before you start thinking of how to develop and improve it ---> acceptance before action. Don't let your actions be driven by feelings, at least not feelings that you haven't analyzed as far as possible first.
Hawkins wrote: it is people like you who are impediments to progress since you are not concerned with the right things but yourself.
This is funny, 'cause it actually fits in with the original topic!
Guest wrote: ... THIS IN NO WAY OBLIGATES ANYONE TO HELP OTHERS!
But some do. So you either have to make them ask themselves why the do that, or just accepting it and keep on striving for gaining power and see what good will come out of all of it.
Guest wrote: Plato, yeah, MAYBE IF I WAS STILL A CHILD WHO LIKED TO READ FLOWERY BOOKS WITH REAL SUBSTANCE.
Didn't you say that children are too young to be concerned with nonsense? Actually.. Since you seem to be against many things in our modern society and many of your opinions seem to be in accordance with the ones you had in ancient greece, maybe it would be interesting for you to read up on this (again)?
Guest wrote: Yeah, WHAT PROGRESS? Have you and a group of assholes now decided upon the "progress" of "HUMANITY"? If so, I am HONORED to be an impediment to your bullshit!
This is correct, Hawkins, you must give your definition of progress to avoid misunderstandings.
Guest wrote: Only if he actually has a brain. Thinking on your own just doesn't cut it, dude.
I think he meant "just thinking, doesn't cut it", not to think together with someone else...
Hawkins wrote: These are all scientific as well so you cannot blame transcendentalism for this one. Also the point to my last post was to prove two things,one that you already mentioned and another that you had no idea about: the first being that we cannot know the answers to every question and the second being that despite our ignorance on certain things, there are answers to those questions, even the one's we will never know.
So you ignore the idea of scientific answers only being models, and not definite answers? And maybe there aren't any answer to those questions we'll never find the answers too? How do you know that there are answers for them if you haven't found them?
Hawkins wrote: The essence of existentialism is the fact that we are capable of creating our own lives, developing our own values, we are FREE to do whatever we want
Here the expression "free" must once again be questioned. We can do whatever we want, but are we really "free" to do everything we can do? This comes back later:
Hawkins wrote: Right now I'm on the computer wasting my time with another individual. I could have chosen to go eat, hang out with friends, etc.The fact that I have the freedom to choose what I want to do constitutes as freedom.
You can indeed do what you want to do out of the things you are allowed to do (and those things have been decided by several authorities). If you do not understand, please ask.