non-physicalist atheism

File: 62 KB, 976x850, 1643532804194.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

non-physicalist atheism Anonymous Sat Feb 19 10:49:39 2022 No.19953380 [Reply] [Original]

I don't believe in God, but I don't find the reddit-tier "we're just matter and when you die it's infinite nothingness" thing either. I believe there must be alternatives to either worldview, one that rejects physicalist reductionism but does not argue in favor of a first cause either.
I've read What the Buddha Taught, and I thought it had some interesting ideas, but I have no intention of becoming a Buddhist.

Are there any atheist thinkers who are also not materialists? Any books on this, preferably not scripture?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 10:50:15 2022 No.19953382 >>19953380 >I don't find [...] thing either meant to say "believable" between thing and either

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 10:52:01 2022 No.19953393 >>19953380 Anon you are just coping with your own avoidance of the truth. Repent.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 10:52:50 2022 No.19953399 >>19953393 Go away

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 10:54:36 2022 No.19953407 >>19953380 You should read Leibniz and Spinoza.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 10:56:16 2022 No.19953417 >>19953407 Are they atheist thinkers who are also not materialists? Spinoza is a pantheist right?

Anonymous Sat Feb 19 10:57:32 2022 No.19953425

>>19953380
>Are there any atheist thinkers who are also not materialists? Any books on this, preferably not scripture?
This question would seem ridiculous to you if you read any philosophy, contemporary or otherwise. Countless atheists are not materialists.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 10:58:59 2022 No.19953435 >>19953399 Repent

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 10:59:03 2022 No.19953436 >>19953425 >Countless atheists are not materialists. Like who? The only real atheist philosophers I know are Nietzsche and Bataille and they were both materialists.

>>	Retard Sat Feb 19 10:59:50 2022 No.19953439 >>19953417 Leibniz was a Christian who believed that the universe was composed of monads, simple, indestructible substances that reflect God's glory in a unique way.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 11:01:22 2022 No.19953446 >>19953435 Why do "Christians" on this site seethe so much when you say you just don't believe in their god

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 11:02:01 2022 No.19953451 >>19953417 There are no such thinkers, though these will help you. I chose them because I feel it may be religion that you have an issue with, not God.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 11:03:45 2022 No.19953462 You should open yourself up to new ideas about "God", the fact that the whole "3=1, he's perfect but causes earthquakes that kill babies" makes no sense doesn't undermine all other concepts of God.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 11:04:54 2022 No.19953465 >>19953451 >>19953462 Well I disregard organized religion completely but the concept of God itself isn't something I'm inclined to believe in either. I don't think a first cause for everything is necessary at all. This is why I'm not a deist either.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 11:06:41 2022 No.19953476 >>19953380 Sounds to me you're just afraid of death. Instead of wasting time, why not direct your efforts towards contributing to the development of immortality

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 11:06:45 2022 No.19953477 >>19953446 Why don’t you repent?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 11:08:40 2022 No.19953485 >>19953477 Because I think your religion is bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 11:08:50 2022 No.19953487 >>19953465 >I don't think a first cause for everything is necessary at all. Do you know what 'first cause' means? because it is not to be understood sequentially. Not being a dick btw.

Anonymous Sat Feb 19 11:09:46 2022 No.19953491

>>19953476
>development of immortality
False idol. What about “le inevitable heat death of the universe” meme you fedoras always rave about?
>well you can live a really long time still even though the universe will end
Not immortal. The distinction between what qualifies as a sufficient/insufficient length of time to live is thus totally arbitrary. If 100 years is not enough why would 100,000,000,000,000 years be?

Anonymous Sat Feb 19 11:10:26 2022 No.19953495

>>19953476
You probably won't believe me but I'm not, I'm afraid of pain but death not so much.
>>19953487
It's the single point which every causal chain goes back to, right? I don't agree with the arguments for it, I think it's not unlikely that existence is simply infinite/recursive or that causality just breaks down past a certain point and makes the origin of being incomprehensible.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 11:10:47 2022 No.19953499 >>19953485 I think you should repent

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 11:11:46 2022 No.19953504 >>19953499 I don't care what you think. Stop spamming threads where your kind isn't welcome

Anonymous Sat Feb 19 12:11:18 2022 No.19953782

>>19953380
i see twitter and instagram pop philosophy all the time from basic bitches, that goes something like "lol everyone is made from stardust and when you die you will return to the earth haha"...which is basically true, a kind of partial reincarnation due to your molecules being passed around in worm shit and getting eaten by birds, then eaten by other larger animals. then you have the quantum immortality schizos and other atheist weirdos. any type of atheism is cringe so good luck buddy

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 12:13:05 2022 No.19953791 >>19953782 >atheism is cringe Why?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 12:16:29 2022 No.19953805 >>19953487 >First >Not to be understood sequentially This is why I hate philosophy.

Anonymous Sat Feb 19 12:25:03 2022 No.19953860

>>19953791
atheists are cringe because the entire atheistic movement from the past twenty years is a very specific intellectual movement in opposition to the most retarded fundies deep in the midwest and southern USA, constantly complaining and crying about how they literally believe in satan and the magical sky daddy. these types also take things like the theory of evolution and our current quantum mechanics dogma as absolute fact, and if you disagree about anything that gets filtered down into pop science you're a contemptible idiot, even though many things in these theories are absurd and ridiculous.
even in the bible god is not reducible to simply being the magical sky daddy like atheists try to represent, and atheists often try to use the bible as proof that belief in god is stupid. they'll do things like quote leviticus about ontology, even though it is a priestly rulebook first and foremost. they have no knowledge of hermeneutics and no understanding of why it is important, and their heads would likely explode if they tried to read something simple like thomas aquinas or st augustine, let alone the actually difficult neoplatonists like plotinus or iamblichus. and to add even more insult to injury, almost all atheists are secular humanists, meaning that they derive their entire moral praxis directly from christianity without actively thinking about it

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 12:26:37 2022 No.19953868 >>19953805 No one cares, brainlet.

Anonymous Sat Feb 19 12:28:14 2022 No.19953878

>>19953860
>atheists are cringe because new atheism is retarded
You are misconstruing atheism by equivocating being an atheist with being a pop science worshiping, Dawkins-parroting, reddit browsing, christian moralist in denial pseud.
I just don't believe in God. None of the stuff you said applies to me. So let me reformulate: what's cringe about not believing in God?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 12:29:54 2022 No.19953885 >>19953380 >I believe there must be alternatives to either worldview, one that rejects physicalist reductionism but does not argue in favor of a first cause either Why? If you're going down that road, why reject the first cause principle?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 12:31:09 2022 No.19953888 >>19953380 Read Kant and Husserl. They show how physicalism is nonsense without resorting to theology.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 12:33:45 2022 No.19953897 >>19953878 >So let me reformulate: what's cringe about not believing in God? i will pretend to be socrates for you, what is your definition of god and i will tell you if you are cringe or not

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 12:34:18 2022 No.19953900 >>19953487 Stop applying the principle of sufficient reason outside the bounds of possible experience.

Anonymous Sat Feb 19 12:34:20 2022 No.19953901

>>19953380
The odds that either ego or time is an illusion is so extremely ridiculously high that you don't need to worry about the after life.
If time truly passes forward what are the odds that in a seemingly infinite timeline that it would currently be the time where you are alive?

Anonymous Sat Feb 19 12:37:30 2022 No.19953919

>>19953897
>what is your definition of god
A first cause, or any kind of entity.
>>19953885
>Why?
Because there's no fundamental incompatibility between atheism and rejection of physicalism.
>why reject the first cause
I find all the main arguments unconvincing. I don't believe there is a first cause for existence, to me it's unnecessary.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 12:38:14 2022 No.19953923 >>19953897 A being that necessary exists, is the cause of the Universe, has a Will or volition (not in an inanimate object or an abstract force acting according to its nature) that is entirely existent (lacking nothing) infinite and good.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 12:46:11 2022 No.19953942 >>19953885 Because the concept of first cause involves a dogmatic application of the principle of sufficient reason beyond the bounds of all possible experience.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 12:50:04 2022 No.19953953 >>19953923 Useless meme definition

Anonymous Sat Feb 19 12:53:08 2022 No.19953962

>>19953919
so your issue is that you are an atheist because a first cause cannot be found, i.e the first cause of matter and form existing? also why does your concept of god have to be reducible to a single 'entity', like a person or object?
>>19953923
so you're just like the first guy, your conception of god is reducible to a single entity that has a single will of "yes i wish to create the universe", but at the same time this being is INFINITE?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 12:55:20 2022 No.19953971 >>19953962 Yes, otherwise it’s not God it’s merely some kind of inanimate mechanical force.

Anonymous Sat Feb 19 12:56:59 2022 No.19953977

>>19953491
>What about “le inevitable heat death of the universe” meme you fedoras always rave about?
We'll worry about that when we get there a few septillion septillion septillion years from now. Might even be able to create our own universe, if we aren't tired of life by that point.

Anonymous Sat Feb 19 12:58:58 2022 No.19953987

>>19953962
Well yes I have two main reasons for being an atheist: the first is that I don't believe in the necessity of a first cause, the second is that I don't believe in the necessity of an omnipotent entity (but that follows from the first reason anyway). I'm aware of some pantheistic notions that have God be some kind of all-permeating substance with no real will or awareness, but at that point, why call it God? Sunyata in Buddhism isn't God, for example.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 13:01:32 2022 No.19953993 >>19953380 What you're looking for is Jainism. They believe in an infinite cycle that has no creator or destroyer. You're probably have to read scripture, though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 13:05:03 2022 No.19954005 >>19953977 Not him but that's a cope. It's happening in a timeframe that puts us at a solid integer percentage of years toward it, it's not unfathomably far away.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 13:08:04 2022 No.19954018 >>19953962 God is infinite but that infinity must have a unity or else he isn’t one God

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 13:09:08 2022 No.19954023 >>19954018 So you're saying God uses they/them pronouns?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 13:10:39 2022 No.19954031 I think Schopenhauer is what the OP is looking for. If I were not a theist, I'd probably gravitate towards Schop's outlook than anything else.

Anonymous Sat Feb 19 13:12:25 2022 No.19954036

>>19953971
ok, great. so lets take the logic a little further
>god=first cause (but since we cannot find him we must assume that god doesn't exist for now)
>matter, the material world=first effect. we can assume that matter exists because we are made of whatever we conceptualize matter to be and can see it changing before our eyes
and anything after matter springing forth is just the same thing, matter changing around and recomposing itself. so, a couple more questions for you:
you described god primarily existing as an "entity". correct me if i'm wrong, but an "entity" has things like a form, exists in time, exists in place, and also would have other attributes. it would probably be enough to just describe the entity by way of describing the matter it is composed of
your definition also makes another separation, one between "god", and between "the universe", and i'm assuming the universe is the created thing and god can move in and out of it as he pleases. but you just defined god with attribute properties, and only things that "exist" in the universe have attributes, i.e the table is made of wood, has legs, and is constructed in the human mind as something to place objects on. somewhere in time, but how do you reconcile your idea of god simultaneously being the first cause, but nothing with atttributes existed prior to god creating them? where does your idea of god start and where does your idea of the created universe begin, without the obvious infinite regression problem

Anonymous Sat Feb 19 13:12:37 2022 No.19954037

>>19954005
Humanity can't even fathom a million years, let alone the heat death of the Universe. Wasn't even over ten million years ago when we were just monkeys, and you expect us to fathom something unimaginably bigger than the life span of this planet. Ridiculous

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 13:12:55 2022 No.19954038 >>19954036 No, not really.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 13:14:04 2022 No.19954045 >>19954037 You just fathomed 10 million years right in front of me

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 13:19:04 2022 No.19954065 >>19954045 I didn't fathom it, I just repeated a fact. I can't even comprehend what a thousand years would actually feel like, let alone a million.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 13:25:42 2022 No.19954100 >>19954038 rofl

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 13:27:02 2022 No.19954110 File: 92 KB, 638x1000, 1540427866208.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>19954065 That's just because you look like this

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 13:31:11 2022 No.19954132 >>19954110 Kill yourself wojak posting twitter immigrant

Anonymous Sat Feb 19 13:31:22 2022 No.19954134

>>19954036
Not the guy you're replying to, but an entity can be immaterial and theoretically exist beyond time and space if it created them (which is what "uncreated" means even though I think that's a copout from proponents of the cosmological argument to avoid infinite regress). But entity doesn't mean a corporeal being, it means a singular awareness of some kind.
Either way, I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. Are you suggesting that a transcendental view of God is impossible? I would be inclined to agree anyway, since I believe either infinite regress or some acausal outcome that's impossible to conceptualize are the truth.

Anonymous Sat Feb 19 13:33:43 2022 No.19954143

>>19954036
>correct me if i'm wrong, but an "entity" has things like a form, exists in time, exists in place, and also would have other attributes.
These only apply to entities within space and time. God does not exist within space and time. The only think him being an entity implies is the unity of all his properties/attributes/whatever you want to call it in one "thing". The only entity-hood that God has is the minimum unity that binds together his properties into one existence.

Also, the causality between God and his creation is only the logical relation of ground and consequence, not the temporal or physical relation of temporally sucessive causation or physical construction.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 13:39:09 2022 No.19954160 >>19954132 No, I will not kill myself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 13:39:32 2022 No.19954161 File: 88 KB, 1032x265, Bbr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>19953380 Gravity's Rainbow

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 13:43:22 2022 No.19954176 Our situation really is dire bros...

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 13:44:11 2022 No.19954181 >>19954176 How's that

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 13:47:07 2022 No.19954196 >>19954181 We exist but we can't even figure out what the fuck is going on.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 13:49:20 2022 No.19954208 >>19954196 At this point I'm just hoping death will yield answers but I'm probably kidding myself

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 13:52:24 2022 No.19954222 >>19954208 Yeah, I highly doubt it at this stage in my life but who knows? Maybe there are worse hells than this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 13:55:15 2022 No.19954233 >>19954196 It’s not that complicated anon. You’ve just had your vision clouded by a morass of false prophets and Pharisees who don’t want you to find the Truth.

Anonymous Sat Feb 19 13:55:20 2022 No.19954234

>>19953380
I don't understand, is your request based on the two simultaneous feelings that God doesn't exist but that aferlife must? And you request a metaphysical frame that fits those feelings?
Do you understand that metaphysics are supposed to be foundational, or at the very least, amongst the most foundational of fields? If the requirements for your metaphysical theories is that they match your preexisting feelings, you are doing *exactly* the same fucking thing that twitter wiccans are doing when they pretend to invoke the demon of Raycism to fight him in a spiritual DBZ fight.
What you need is to first develop a personal phenomenology, which requires the suspension of your ontological biases. In the course of this work you will eventually define a proper semantical field in which you can develop your "metaphysics".
As God is either an epistemological device or a pure transcendence of the most radical order in phenomenology, you can completely suspend his existence as long as you are not specifically doing theology.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 13:57:57 2022 No.19954245 >>19954234 >develop a personal phenomenology Not him but how do you do that? And why can't I just come up with my ontological biases and stick to that

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 14:02:41 2022 No.19954274 You came from nothingness You cannot experience nothingness Therefore you will exist again regardless of how long it takes because you can't experience anything else ie- reincarnation is real.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 14:03:34 2022 No.19954279 >>19954274 Doesn't this lead to some paradoxes?

Anonymous Sat Feb 19 14:12:31 2022 No.19954333

>>19954245
>Not him but how do you do that?
Read Husserl, meditate, write introspective descriptions of the content of your consciousness, learn of the Stoic's Epoche and practice it.
>And why can't I just come up with my ontological biases and stick to that
I mean, it isn't that you can or can't, you (and I) already do that all the time, that's our natural attitude. We all have natural ontological biases, living in everyday life is living according to those biases, even the least "immediately empirically relevant" ones like the existence of God or the afterlife.
But that's living your life, not reflecting on it. Reflexion is the possibility and the way to exit our natural attitude. Its very object lies beyond the immediacy of lived events. To contemplate Truth you have to be willing to travel the path it layed down for you.

Anonymous Sat Feb 19 14:13:33 2022 No.19954338

>>19954333
There are several phenomenological models and none of them can really be proven, to my knowledge. There are also several forms of meditation and they all lead to different insights about the nature of consciousness (hindu, buddhist, you name it)

Anonymous Sat Feb 19 14:25:38 2022 No.19954381

>>19954338
>proven
Your standard of proof is likely empirically derived, which makes it an impossibilia to phenomenology. The standard of "proof" in pheno is that any statements can be derived entirely and completely from an architectonically antecedent statement which was given through pure intuition.
>There are also several forms of meditation and they all lead to different insights
So? Does a hiker laments that there are multiple paths for him to travel?

Anonymous Sat Feb 19 14:33:08 2022 No.19954428

>>19954381
>Your standard
The only standard everyone can agree on for convenience is empirical evidence. I mean you can go the skeptic route but the only thing everyone can agree on is what is empirically verifiable, everything else can be argued about endlessly, especially metaphysics
>pure intuition
Sorry but I don't understand how that constitutes proof. I mean it's proof on a subjective level only.
>Does a hiker laments that there are multiple paths for him to travel?
The implication here is that all paths are valid regardless of where they lead. Isn't there an assumption that truth should be consistent, not depend on the individual?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 14:42:23 2022 No.19954481 >>19954233 Thanks for worrying kiddo. You're a good old boy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 14:45:12 2022 No.19954491 >>19954233 Adults are discussing actual things here, stay in your lane.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 15:26:17 2022 No.19954666 File: 3.26 MB, 4032x3024, R (37).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>19954196 Don't be worried about the destination just be glad about the ride

Anonymous Sat Feb 19 15:32:00 2022 No.19954692
File: 219 KB, 600x600, bbd.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>19954428
>The only standard everyone can agree on for convenience is empirical evidence.
I disagree. A priori sciences do not require empirical proofs, but sometimes find their expressions in empirical events.
>I mean it's proof on a subjective level only.
And before you can speak of a metaphysic, with all it implies, you need to have a proper handling of your subjectivity. Pure intuition is "proof" for the descriptions of pure ideal and transcendental objects, that is, those that do not contain any empirical essences, and thus escape the empirical realm.
>The implication here is that all paths are valid regardless of where they lead.
I should apologize for implying that, that is obviously wrong, but in the case of meditation, if it is followed by a study of the content of your meditation, then the fruit of the labour should show the value of the method. You shouldn't ask for the truth today, tomorrow or next year, you should get on your knees and pray that you might be lucky enough to glimpse at it once before the next decade.
Just do it.

Anonymous Sat Feb 19 15:34:24 2022 No.19954707

This brings up an interesting question: for all the variety of metaphysics, dualism, monism, physicalism, etc., how come most philosopher-unique metaphysics go nowhere? Is there a human being on the planet that merely accepts Schopenhauer's metaphysics? Someone who believes in monadology?
The vast majority of students of philosophy or science merely accept an established metaphysic. Such as: physicalism, or a religious metaphysic (Thomism).
I've never met someone who was a "Schopenhauerian."

Anonymous Sat Feb 19 15:37:14 2022 No.19954730

>>19954692
>A priori sciences
Isn't that just math? I don't think it's even accurate to say this about physics since it's possible to construct mathematically sound cosmological models that are actually nonsense in reality for example.
>Pure intuition is "proof" for the descriptions of pure ideal and transcendental objects
If that is so, why do philosophers justify their metaphysical stances with rational arguments instead of chalking it up to intuition?
>the fruit of the labour should show the value of the method.
That's my point though, different meditative paths will lead to different insights. Someone who practices samatha might agree with Buddhist phenomenology while someone who practices kundalini tantra might say that's nonsense and come to "know" the truth of Brahman.
I had a meditation practice not too long ago but I couldn't manage to keep it up, I'll try again.
>>19954707
I've never seen anyone on this board formulate their own metaphysical stance, even some kind of basic model, instead everyone wants to be part of the platonist team, or the thomist team, or the advaitin team, or the physicalist team...

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 15:37:40 2022 No.19954732 File: 35 KB, 325x499, 45810934739270134.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>19953380

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 15:40:28 2022 No.19954740 >>19953436 Didn’t Nietzsche believe in reincarnation?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 15:40:57 2022 No.19954741 >>19954740 Pretty sure the eternal recurrence is a thought experiment and he didn't actually believe it was a metaphysical truth but I could be wrong

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 15:42:19 2022 No.19954746 >>19953436 Nietzsche was an idealist who wanted to be a materialist but he couldn't.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 15:42:39 2022 No.19954750 >>19954746 Could you explain?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 15:45:16 2022 No.19954758 >>19954666 based

Anonymous Sat Feb 19 16:02:28 2022 No.19954817

>>19954730
>Isn't that just math?
Parts of maths, logic and mereology.
>why do philosophers justify their metaphysical stances with rational arguments instead of chalking it up to intuition?
Philosophers betray the spirit of their practice when they do not realize that their duty is to only describe the essences they witness.
>Someone who practices x
If your objective is the Truth, then you will eventually isolate or discard what is ontologically biased in the method. Knowledge is met in consciousness through reflexive abstraction. Let the object you seek lead you and teach you its path. It is by reflecting and abstracting everything you can in what you reflect that you will eventually be ready to see it.

Anonymous Sat Feb 19 16:05:27 2022 No.19954829

>>19954817
>Philosophers betray the spirit of their practice
Aren't you basically calling out the entire philosophical tradition both western and eastern when you say that? To only describe an essence, wouldn't that be closer to mysticism?
>you will eventually isolate or discard what is ontologically biased
I suppose that's why they teach about the primacy of experiential understanding of truth and the breaking down of semiotic codes past a certain level

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 16:07:08 2022 No.19954834 >>19954692 >today or tomorrow or next year or next life ;)

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 16:14:44 2022 No.19954864 Congrats you believe that same thing as every "spiritual" bougie white woman

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 16:15:06 2022 No.19954870 >>19954864 have sex

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 16:17:22 2022 No.19954881 >>19954870 I'm gay I have sex all the time it rocks

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 16:17:39 2022 No.19954883 >>19954864 Yeah I guess I should be an epic contrarian like you to spite the normies who live rent free in my head right? Faggot

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 16:19:52 2022 No.19954890 >>19954881 that's gay

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 16:21:46 2022 No.19954895 >>19954883 I'm not a contrarian; I grew up around people like that and nobody I saw found any fulfillment in that belief system

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 16:22:07 2022 No.19954896 >>19954883 it's just a phase, man

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 16:22:52 2022 No.19954899 >>19954895 I'm not shopping around for "belief systems" to find fulfillment like I would for self-help books. >>19954896 Contrarianism? I guess, not on here though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 16:23:51 2022 No.19954901 >>19954899 >Contrarianism? spirituality

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 16:25:29 2022 No.19954906 File: 460 KB, 1196x752, post singularity.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>19953380 The technological singularity implies the existence of God. We live in a simulation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 16:25:34 2022 No.19954907 >>19954899 You literally started a thread for somebody to give you something to read that would tell you what to believe. If that's not shopping around for a belief system I don't know what is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 16:27:39 2022 No.19954912 >>19954907 Your posts are incoherent, I already stated what I believed in in the OP, and you pointed it out yourself. Now you're saying I'm shopping around for a belief system, you're making no sense.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 16:31:58 2022 No.19954936 >>19954912 You're shopping around for ways to rationalize what you have to tell yourself in order to cope with the fact that this is all there is

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 16:33:02 2022 No.19954940 >>19954936 I never believed this was all there is at any point in my life, so I don't need to cope.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 16:39:03 2022 No.19954964 File: 181 KB, 1108x1009, no_death.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>19953380 Reincarnation is a lot more plausible than eternal oblivion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uz6anwm47g

Anonymous Sat Feb 19 16:40:05 2022 No.19954970
File: 25 KB, 600x338, open individualism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>19953380
Take the Open Individualism pill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JomlwxRAtZo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9unZn75Moo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhoqz4PEtkU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP3dCVhOnzE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrGoOlPepC8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WKqO16mkGE

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 16:41:06 2022 No.19954975 File: 28 KB, 680x636, styx yes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>19953380 Styxhexenhammer666 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSChbQEUP7g

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 16:45:01 2022 No.19954993 >>19954970 >you are everyone Hinduism?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 16:49:53 2022 No.19955007 >>19953436 Uhhh Chalmers

Anonymous Sat Feb 19 16:59:13 2022 No.19955050

>>19954829
>Aren't you basically calling out the entire philosophical tradition both western and eastern when you say that?
Yes. There is a reason why Husserl himself said philosophy prior to phenomenology was ultimately just preparatory (although he obviously had an immense respect for many philosophers). It is definitely one of the things that made him look more like a quack, but it is legitimated by his goal and how he viewed the structuration of knowledge.
>wouldn't that be closer to mysticism?
Not at all, essences are (well, the vast majority of them, I mean, there is an "essence of God" or the spiritual, which isn't to attribute a reality to the entities as described, but to the ideal construct itself) not "a type of stuff" that stands in a different world we access mystically through the special divine power of thought. They are what you meet and manipulate in consciousness to produce understanding. "Real", physical objects cannot be "really", physically abstracted, because abstraction doesn't happen in the physical world, it is an operation of consciousness. Essences are simply the necessary presupposition to the possibility of knowledge.
See the difference here. I do not attribute a specific ontological value to essences, stating that it either "proves" or "disprove" idealism or realism. I simply describe what is necessary given my aim and limit my description as much as possible to the confines of what can be given intuitively. It simply account for the necessary primacy of subjectivity in the order of truth-seeking. *If*, from there, you wish to say that this invalidates the negative claim of materialistic metaphysics, then I would say that this claim is properly founded. But it would be a limited claim which would not attribute any specificity to the reality of essences, except their contingency for consciousness as we live it.
Mysticism would be to turn phenomenology into an explanatory arithmetic of essences. It finds its rigor and scientificity in the fact that it (hopes to) remain purely descriptive.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 17:10:36 2022 No.19955099 >>19955050 I'm not getting everything in your post so I think I should just read Husserl and make sense of it on my own, where should one start with him, are there specific prerequisites to understanding his work?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 19:59:45 2022 No.19955974 >>19955099 Start with Philosophy as Rigorous Science.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 20:30:43 2022 No.19956111 >>19954279 No, because there is no "you". >>19954274 had to use it because that's how English works, but that "you" doesn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 21:09:15 2022 No.19956302 >>19953380 Yes. Read Cassirer.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 19 21:18:29 2022 No.19956357 >>19953380 Searle

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 02:01:02 2022 No.19957258 >>19956111 What's typing this right now?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 03:05:23 2022 No.19957437 >>19954428 If you posit empirical evidence as a necessary proof, then you should just do science instead but it kinda defeats your purpose in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 03:38:58 2022 No.19957527 >>19957437 Isn't proof something that everyone can agree on?

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 04:07:01 2022 No.19957600

>>19954274
That’s just coping by mental retardation. You experience nothing before you were born, after you die, in between when you are in anesthesia. We don’t know what eternity is. It does not mean time is cyclical. Even if it goes back and forth, it does not mean it will be exactly same in each iteration, even it would be same, there is no reason to believe it will be you experiencing it. If there is reincarnation it means anybody is everybody which is a farce. You don’t remember any other life so there is no any other life, because it was not you. Subjectively it was another person experiencing it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 04:10:10 2022 No.19957607 >>19954964 Wrong. Even if there is something reincarnated, it won’t be the same subject experiencing it. How do I know? Because I remember no other life.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 04:57:12 2022 No.19957750 >>19957607 Have you read Ian Stevenson?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 05:12:42 2022 No.19957816 File: 22 KB, 360x276, 1645351960886.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>19953504 Repent

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 05:20:20 2022 No.19957856 >>19957816 Seethe

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 05:50:40 2022 No.19957945

>>19957750
No but I take a look now and his work seems somehow similar to Michael Newton’s which I am more familiar with. I believe the mind is capable of creating all sorts of illusions for us to believe which is something I myself have also experienced in psychedelic trips. That doesn’t mean they have any credibility. Something like a near death experience seems like mind coping with the realization that the person might soon die. Why doesn’t this happen with anesthesia for example, because mind doesn’t have time to realize and when it is shut, you don’t experience anything.

But even if we assume there is indeed a spirit and it reincarnates into different bodies, or be reborn into this body again or even resurrected (this last one I am not so sure since time is still linear in this case) that consciousness will not be you. Some people seem to remember their old lives doesn’t mean much. I don’t remember. So it is not me.

This can also be understood that the self is the supreme being and the self is one and we are all part of one big river in a rather hinduistic sense. These two ideas seem like the opposite of each other but they are actually the same. Because at this moment I am myself having a subjective experience, it doesn’t matter someone lived before me and he was me because it might as well that you were me.

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 05:59:45 2022 No.19957968
File: 182 KB, 430x680, 1638393561011.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>19957945
Yeah I also struggle with the idea that everything can be chalked up to delusions of the mind. Every time someone speaks of a "mystical experience", a "realization", "enlightenment", or anything of the sort, I can't help but think there's no real way to determine if it is actually "real" or if it's just another setting for consciousness as in pic related. They tell you stuff like "if you had such an experience you'd undoubtebly know it's real" but that explains nothing at all, self-delusion is powerful.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 06:23:40 2022 No.19958057 >>19953380 literally why the fuck would you hold both of these beliefs? it sounds like you're so afraid of reddit that you'd rather live with a terrible case of cognitive dissonance

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 06:24:11 2022 No.19958062 >>19958057 Where's the cognitive dissonance? Why should atheism imply physicalism?

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 06:33:46 2022 No.19958096

>>19957968
I am a skeptic at heart, as Gorgias would put it: 'Nothing exists, even if existence exists, it cannot be known, even if it could be known, it cannot be communicated.' One of the main themes in the novel Siddhartha was that wisdom cannot be taught with words, you have to experience it yourself. Also something I recall Ghazali said: 'I have experienced things I cannot explain, interpret them as for the good and don't ask me about them.' or Bayazid Bastami along the similar lines 'it cannot be found by seeking, but finders are seekers.' Many othes in mysticism emphasize this esoteric approach.

And then the next problem, even if you cannot learn any metaphysical truth, and only experience it, how can you know it is not a delusion of the mind. My limited understanding into psychology led me to believe that it is mostly the delusion of the mind but I cannot be certain. After all there is so much we don't know even regarding the physical world.

As for altered states of consciousness, I think if there is more study conducted in this field we will understand more and can outline the effects on the human mind can approach it more in a methodical way. There might even be ways to reproduce your pic related in a computer environment at least the visual etc. But for now it appears like a mystical experience to many.

I remember when I took shrooms for the first time, I have lost my sense of self, be one with all space time and experienced eternity in a second (Blake could do it without drugs anyway) and once the effects started to wear off I was so saddened by the realization that I am leaving the real world and returning to the world of illusions and I was sure of it. And this was before I had any study into Buddhism or Hinduism. But another time I took it and I heard a voice talking to me as if from a computer screen: welcome to your shroom experience brought to you by such and such. Now you will have these following entartainments etc. it was a complete farce. But I sensed within me a fight between my ego and letting go of it to the trip. I had to let it go due to the intensity of the dosage but I realized as opposed to the my previous trips that I am this ego, I want to be this ego, I don't want it to dissolve. I am telling this to explain that these experiences pretty much depends on the quality of the thing you took and your psychological state at that moment.

These doubts shouldn't prevent us from trying to understand the reality and its diverse appearences. Insights into consensus reality is still of course very much useful. But I am more or less convinced that I won't have any metaphysical truths. I won't understand myself. The candle does not illuminate its root. You cannot see beyond the edges of your sight etc. This is existence itself is magical and it is wonderous that I exist and so I am content with this. Man shall learn to live by bread alone.

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 06:48:17 2022 No.19958139

>>19958062
The only good reason to believe in God is because it solves a whole lot of existential problems for us, such as creation. If you choose not to believe in God, then what reason do you have left to believe in a transcendental/spiritual mode of being that no human being has ever had any first-hand experience of? You just randomly choose to believe in it?

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 06:53:22 2022 No.19958148
File: 202 KB, 1100x794, 1618679258771.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>19958096
For the sake of argument though, this quote by Gorgias is self-refuting.
Anyway, do we know if there is a genuine difference between a natural mystical experience induced by meditation, prayer or whatever, and a "synthetic" mystical experience induced by powerful reality-shattering compounds like 5MeO-DMT, Salvia or high doses of ketamine?
Strangely, people tend to come to similar insights during natural mystical experiences (pic related) and during states induced by particularly powerful drugs. Whether this is meaningful or not I can't say, since as you pointed out yourself, psychedelic experiences are also dependent on your own state and are conditioned by your environment and mindset... So who's to say once experience is more meaningful than another?

I don't know about the attempts to understand reality. On a purely practical, empirical level, sure. But metaphysics?
An ant can't possibly conceptualize let alone begin to comprehend simple concepts that human beings take as granted. It seems conceited to me to assume that human reason permits any kind of overarching understanding of the nature of existence. The Jains and their concept of Anekantavada is interesting in that regard. It seems far more likely to me that the nature of things is utterly incomprehensible and cannot possibly be grasped by our limited intellect. As you said, being content with your current state of experience, and just experiencing it, might be enough.

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 06:53:49 2022 No.19958150

>>19953495
>It's the single point which every causal chain goes back to, right? I don't agree with the arguments for it, I think it's not unlikely that existence is simply infinite/recursive
Infinite/recursive doesn't contradict the first/final cause, like for example limit and colimit in category theory.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 06:56:22 2022 No.19958157 >>19958139 Physicalism fails to satisfactorily explain consciousness, but consciousness can be explained by alternative models that don't necessarily include God. God on the other hand is not necessary to explain existence.

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 06:58:07 2022 No.19958160

>>19958150
Could you explain this?
I might be wrong but I don't think the aristotelian notion of a first cause can accomodate an infinite cycle or recursion, as it very clearly posits a "starting point" from which things are set in motion by an unconditioned mover.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 06:59:22 2022 No.19958164 >>19953380 >>19958157 There are many philosophers that do not believe in a personal god. At that point god is just a name for habit.

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 07:13:15 2022 No.19958213 [DELETED]

>>19953380
>Are there any atheist thinkers who are also not materialists?
me. i dont hold a position on the hard problem of consciousness but i at least acknowledge its validity as a problem. i dont believe in an afterlife though. i dont believe in a consisting observer to experience, only experience, since an observer experiencing experience is redundant. experience only has to be to fulfill what we think of as the process of being experienced, its not like a film with no one watching if it isnt experienced because by its very nature it is experienced. all of this does imply the simultanious existence of all experience though which is unimaginably depressing. i wish nothing was

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 07:17:43 2022 No.19958228

>>19953380 (OP)
>Are there any atheist thinkers who are also not materialists?
me. i dont hold a position on the hard problem of consciousness but i at least acknowledge its validity as a problem. i dont believe in an afterlife though. i dont believe in a consisting observer to experience, only experience, since an observer experiencing experience is redundant. experience only has to be to fulfill what we think of as the process of being experienced, its not like a film with no one watching if it isnt experienced because by its very nature it is experienced. all of this does imply the simultanious existence of all experience though. if the real self is qualia, and the feeling of self etends to more than a single moment of qualia, why shouldnt it extend to all qualia everywhere everytime? which is unimaginably depressing. i wish nothing was

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 07:20:54 2022 No.19958240

>>19958148
I think those two experiences are similar in some sense. But as Alan Watts said these experiences should be treated as doors not the destination. Some people keep trying to be in these altered states instead of learning from them and moving on. I also don't agree, whether these outworldly glimpses are delusions or not, they should not divert us from the life we have right now like those people in picrel or many other thinkers stated. I am more of a Nietzschean in that regard. I don't understand why the fleeting and impermanent reality that we have right now would be inferior to a possible permanent reality that we might have at some point.

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 07:29:14 2022 No.19958262

>>19957607
>How do I know? Because I remember no other life.
How is this an argument? Once after a mushroom trip was over I had no idea who or where I am, I didn't even have the idea of being a human, I just was, I could as well found myself being a bird at that time and it'd be the same confusion. And still I was the same subject, I-ness was the same. Or the same way you wouldn't remember an intense trip, despite the trip being extremely vivid at the moment of experience, was it not you experiencing it in that case?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 07:38:40 2022 No.19958306 >>19958240 >I don't understand why the fleeting and impermanent reality that we have right now would be inferior to a possible permanent reality Inferior in the sense that it would be less substantial, less "real".

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 07:46:12 2022 No.19958330

>>19958160
You assume the unmoved mover is somewhere in your recursion, but it's not, the "starting point" is nowhere found in all those infinite processes. Limit/colimit in category theory is a very concrete example of an infinite chain of objects arriving or being preceded by another object. There's no any conflict with Aristotelian logic, maybe you've just been exposed to a limited set of examples.
Other than that, I suggest you invistigated Kashmir Shaivism and Vedanta philosophy. Issues raised by you are very thouroughly addressed in Shavaites' debates with Buddhists.
https://www.academia.edu/12663122/Can_one_prove_that_something_exists_beyond_consciousness_A_Saiva_criticism_of_the_Sautrantika_inference_of_external_objects
https://www.academia.edu/12663174/On_the_distinction_between_epistemic_and_metaphysical_Buddhist_idealisms_a_Saiva_perspective
That one might be interesting too https://sci.bban.top/pdf/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2017.09.003.pdf#page=4&zoom=auto,-17,217

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 07:49:26 2022 No.19958336 >>19958330 So you're saying you can have an infinite chain that is somehow set in motion by a first cause that's outside of it? But what's the point? You can have the infinite chain without the first cause, so why bring up the latter?

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 07:50:30 2022 No.19958341

>>19958262
Then what is the difference between you and me, or even a bird? We are all same witness consciousness experiencing reality at different times.

Don't you see? It doesn't matter. There is no difference between you reincarnate into a new person or a new baby is born. It won't be you as there was no you before you were born as you don't remember any of it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 07:51:46 2022 No.19958345 >>19958306 Yeah but it exists for certain while the other is only probable and we don't even know what it is like. So it is only a human longing for some greener pastures and thus a psychological phenomenon.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 07:54:03 2022 No.19958354 >>19957527 If it was so easy, then there wouldn't be such questions in the first place. It shows how science has its limits too. Not everything has empirical evidence, I'm afraid.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 08:12:13 2022 No.19958434 >>19958354 So, how do we know anything at all?

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 08:23:28 2022 No.19958477

>>19958336
>You can have the infinite chain without the first cause, so why bring up the latter?
That's a strong statement. Can you give an example of such a chain? Or at least give an argument for why such a chain could exist. Besides, I wasn't making a case for that, I merely said that there's nothing wrong with infinite chain having a primal cause or "arriving" at something.
>>19958341
I didn't raise the the question of difference, I only noted that subjective I-ness is not equated with personality, memory or experience, you are not your body, not your mind, not your thoughts.I-ness exists in complete opposition to everything, you are aware of table because you are not of table, and whatever you are aware of in the same manner is not you either. Maybe that ultimate subject is the same within you and me, I don't know if it can be concluded solely on what I've said.
>We are all same witness consciousness experiencing reality at different times.
That's what physicalism and computationalism lead to as well by triviality arguments.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 08:27:01 2022 No.19958483 >>19957856 I know you do, but have you tried repenting instead?

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 08:27:41 2022 No.19958486

>>19958477
Can you give an example for an uncaused cause?
Such a chain could exist because it's the explanation that requires the least amount of assumptions, as it does not require me to posit the existence of an uncreated first mover. There was a thread about this a couple days ago though and I don't want to derail this one so let's not have this devolve into an argument about cosmology.
There's nothing wrong with the infinite chain having a primal cause but since you can have the infinite chain by itself, I see no reason to add a primal cause to it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 08:29:10 2022 No.19958490 >>19958483 From what?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 08:29:30 2022 No.19958491 >>19957527 Only if you agree with the brute-facts/axioms fundamental to trh system of logic what the proof uses.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 08:34:18 2022 No.19958506 >>19958491 There's one main system of logic that we use. Can you disagree with the fundamental axios of our logic system?

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 08:44:05 2022 No.19958542

>>19958477
>subjective I-ness is not equated with personality, memory or experience
Yeah that's where we disagree. Some past reincarnation of yours is not you since you don't remember it is my main argument which connects memory and experience to this subjective I-ness. Because these memories and experiences are what differentiates me from the table.

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 08:49:51 2022 No.19958569

>>19958486
>Can you give an example for an uncaused cause?
No, since whatever is exemplified can be deconstructed. And if you keep looking for the uncaused cause in the examples, you will never find it. Omnis determinatio negatio est, whenever you define something, you always negate, and example is the crudest form of a definition. So it's foolish to ask for a demonstration of an uncaused cause in such a manner because you're expecting me to bind it in causal relations.
>Such a chain could exist because it's the explanation that requires the least amount of assumptions
Except that it's not an explanation of anything. But you're right that if you just ignore the question, you don't need assumptions then. Nevertheless if you're interested in promoting your view and making it more solid, you may look into Vasubandhu. I'm not familiar with him, but he argued against God in a similar manner as you do, by rejecting primal cause. Soem counterarguments to him are here https://www.academia.edu/20335749/Utpaladevas_Proof_of_God_on_the_Purpose_of_the_%C4%AA%C5%9Bvarasiddhi

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 08:51:21 2022 No.19958574 >>19958486 Besides, positing an infinite chain is very problematic in itself. Are you completely comfortable with uncountable infinities for example?

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 08:55:49 2022 No.19958591

>>19958569
So how can you back up the assertion that things are caused by a prime mover if you can't demonstrate it?
>it's not an explanation of anything
How so? It's just not a satisfactory explanation if you want everything to boil down to some first principle, but things being infinitely recursive is certainly self-consistent and sufficient. I'll read that, thanks.
>>19958574
Infinite recursion is the logical next step to saying things have causes. It requires no mental gymnastics and no post hoc rationalizing of a separate principle. I don't see it as problematic.

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 08:57:30 2022 No.19958595

>>19958542
>Yeah that's where we disagree
It's just about semantics, but it's still essential. By I-ness I refer to the ultimate subject who is aware, and you instead refer it to more crude things like personality or memories, you still wouldn't be able to define it though.
>Because these memories and experiences are what differentiates me from the table.
So it doesn't have to do with I-ness? In that case a chatbot has memories and experiences. If you neglect awareness and see humans as p-zombies, then of course there's no problem with your approach,

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 09:00:26 2022 No.19958608

>>19957945
>Some people seem to remember their old lives doesn’t mean much. I don’t remember. So it is not me.
I haven't read much into the research on reincarnation and therefore don't have any opinion on it, but this is an absolute retard tier statement for obvious reasons. If you don't remember learning how to walk, did you ever learn how to walk? or was that somebody else who learned how to walk? If you say that it wasn't you because you don't have the memory, what if you suddenly remember learning how to walk? Does it magically resume being you who learned how to walk? No. You learned how to walk, then forgot it, but it was still you all along, even if you couldn't remember it. If people do recall accurate memories of past lives, to say it "doesn't mean much" is utterly retarded. And from what little I know, Ian Stevenson and others at university of Virginia claim continuity of personality traits as well as memories.
>It won't be you as there was no you before you were born as you don't remember any of it.
Because if you don't remember something, it never happened... right? Jeeeesus. Reminds me of people who argue that mystical experiences simply don't exist because they have never experienced them.

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 09:11:32 2022 No.19958647

>>19958591
>So how can you back up the assertion that things are caused by a prime mover if you can't demonstrate it?
You can only demonstrate things which are differentiated, prime mover is not differentiated or conditioned. I don't arrive to it by logic, I just always have in beyond horizon, and horizon is always there just by mere fact that I can do logic. In other words primal cause is more of a definition than a conclusion, and I'm not eager to equate it with anything I can reasonably arrive to, for example I like Gödel's ontological argument, but I don't exactly equate his best of all beings with the unmoved mover.
Also you still have to address problem with the totality of everything. Whatever causes there were to the world, there couldn't be more than one, since if there were ,say, two causes, they were in some medium already which they interacted.
>Infinite recursion is the logical next step to saying things have causes. It requires no mental gymnastics and no post hoc rationalizing of a separate principle. I don't see it as problematic
Infinite recursion or indefinite recursion? That is a subtle question. Indefinite recursion is just avoiding the question and infinite recursion is not as unproblematic as seem to think it is.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 09:14:29 2022 No.19958658 As this thread points out, OP, nobody knows, nobody really cares, and anyone who does pretend to know or care is a charlatan.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 09:23:01 2022 No.19958677 >>19958658 >nobody really cares A lot of people do care very much.

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 09:24:44 2022 No.19958682

>>19958647
>You can only demonstrate things which are differentiated
Then the prime mover requires a logical leap — well, even more than that, it requires disregarding logic entirely, as you said yourself. I don't see the necessity in that, is all.
>Whatever causes there were to the world, there couldn't be more than one
>Infinite recursion or indefinite recursion
Take the Buddhists as an example. An infinite loop of causal chains that cause each other. Link 1 causes link 2 which causes link 3 [...] which causes link 12 which causes link 1, and so on.

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 09:27:29 2022 No.19958688

>>19958595
>>19958608
What you call I-ness, I am wont to call it the witness-consciousness.

My premise is that you the I-ness was not reincarnated before because it has no recollection of it. And I am not even defending this from a physicalist point of view but rather purely philosophical.

This I-ness has no quality, not attributes. It can experience different things or have access to different memories but the I-ness itself is pretty much same in each person. I think this one is not provable but also in a way self evident within consensus reality.

I repeat this: I die. I reincarnate as a new baby versus I die and a new baby is born is the same thing. If you understand this you understand what I mean.

So it is absolutely the same thing if the same subject witness every person's life, or again it doesn't matter if the same subject live this life for an inifinite number of iterations. There will never be a moment where I will remember those other lives.

So in that sense I am also partially what I remember. I am not the the subject, not the witness consiousness. I am what I am. I have consiousness but that is not me. That consiousness might have witnessed previous lives but that is not me. This thought is very intiutive to me but ofc other people may disagree.

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 09:31:46 2022 No.19958697

>>19958677
Do they really? Why would they? What do they stand to gain? The only reason to expend energy on thinking about this is the belief that there's something to gain from it, be it wisdom, happiness, a better life. You will get none of these just pondering the meaning of existence because nobody at all knows where/when/why or how being came into existence, what purpose we serve if any, and we have literally no way at all of finding out. So just do what you were evolved to do, try to straighten out the chemicals in your brains and try to have fun before it's over.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 09:31:53 2022 No.19958698 >>19958647 Why couldn't the origin of existence be completely incomprehensible? As pointed out in >>19958148

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 09:35:01 2022 No.19958710

>>19958697
If you don't ponder on these questions, there will be a time when your offsprings will be deceived by the real charlatans as we see in the world since time immemorial. So it is still wise to think about these things even when you know you won't get the answers.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 09:38:27 2022 No.19958719 >>19954031 This. OP read Schopenhauer

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 09:45:04 2022 No.19958733

>>19958148
>The Jains and their concept of Anekantavada is interesting in that regard
Everywhere they apply their method of the seven standpoints — from one point of view it (anything) exists, from one point of view it does not exist, from one point of view it both exists and does not exist, from one point of view it is indescribable, from one point of view it is existent and indescribable, from one point of view it is non-existent and indescribable, from one point of view it is both existent and non-existent and also indescribable. They apply their method of the seven standpoints even to such items as oneness and eternity.

To all this we reply that the relativism of the Jainas is not justified, because, as the author of the Sutras puts it, ‘of the impossibility (of directly contradictory attributes) in one and the same thing’. You cannot have contradictory attributes such as ‘existent’ and ‘non-existent’ at the same time in the same substance, any more than the same thing can be at the same time hot and cold. The seven principles, which they regard as existent and as having definite natures, must either exist with those natures or not exist. If all that we have is the indefinite knowledge that a certain thing might be of such and such a nature, or of a different nature, or not of that previously assumed nature, then our knowledge is like doubt and has no cogency.

Perhaps you will say that the definite knowledge that a thing is many-sided does not lack cogency, like doubt. But we reply that you are wrong. For even the definite knowledge of one who recklessly extends the principle of relativism to cover all entities is itself an entity, and falls within his own formula, ‘From one point of view it is, from one point of view it is not, etc.,’ and is hence itself not of a definite nature. In the same way, both the one who has the definite knowledge, and also the cognition resulting from the process of knowledge, will exist from one standpoint and not from another. This being so, how can a Jaina set himself up as an authority and give teaching, when neither the means of knowledge nor the object of knowledge nor the knower of knowledge nor the knowledge itself can be asserted to have any definite existence? And how could he have pupils who acted on his teaching, seeing that its exact nature could never be definitely ascertained? For people in the world wait until they are sure that something will have an advantageous result for them and then apply themselves calmly to the proper means for attaining that thing: they do not act without such knowledge. One attempting to propagate a science which is itself by its very nature beyond definite determination as ‘such and such’ can expect to find his words neglected like those of a drunkard or a lunatic.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 09:46:52 2022 No.19958740 >>19958733 >tl;dr: I don't understand what "indescribable" means

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 09:54:15 2022 No.19958765 The worm loves us. It always has. It always will. What was, will be. What will be, was.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 10:11:35 2022 No.19958812 >>19953446 They gotta justify their terminal virginity so they pick religion as an excuse.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 11:02:18 2022 No.19959020 >>19958765 What worm

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 11:34:18 2022 No.19959142 >>19959020 The circle. The loop. The embodiment of the circle and the loop.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 11:34:27 2022 No.19959143 >>19953446 larping tradcath /pol/fags who do nothing but polarize and see anyone who isn't part of their religion as a dyed-hair megatriggered supreme libtard hellbent on dismantling western society

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 11:42:54 2022 No.19959179 >>19959143 The ortholarpers are worse

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 12:35:50 2022 No.19959368

>>19953446
Because it's a retarded concept that only stays afloat in your head if everyone around you also claims to believe it, the awareness that people who disbelieve exist severely undermines their conviction. This is the same principle behind the fact that it is considered very rude to tell another kid you don't believe in Santa if they still do.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 12:48:41 2022 No.19959403 >>19959368 >the awareness that people who disbelieve exist severely undermines their conviction I think I understand now.

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 12:51:46 2022 No.19959420

>>19959179
The difference is that we all actually know some Catholics, it's not completely implausible to claim you were drawn into it by things other than internet memes. The Orthodox church has a very flimsy presence and the west and doesn't express any interest in getting new converts. They're openly just a form of Catholicism that is designed for the Eastern palate and they'd be more than happy for you to just become a Catholic instead, or really any kind of christian.

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 12:54:15 2022 No.19959437

>>19959403
This had't occured to you before? I've always known this, back when I was a kid there was a christian kid with issues who knew I was an atheist and would randomly start seething about it out loud even though no one had said a word about the topic.

I would go a bit further and say Christian who does not show any of this trait either has very strong faith or none ar all.

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 13:09:34 2022 No.19959515

>>19959420
I guess I'm biased because I mainly know Orthodox. But they're not obnoxious like the online ones. I find the e-orthodox zoomers much more fanatical, they're literal caricatures.
>does this agree with me? praise christ
>does this bother me? demons
At least catholics try to justify themselves, even if it's shoddy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 13:11:18 2022 No.19959528 >>19959437 >This had't occured to you before? Cult mentality eludes me, honestly. But yeah I see it, it's why the most agressive are either the dumbest ones or the smartest ones who see the cognitive dissonance but don't want to let it go.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 13:16:50 2022 No.19959547 >>19953380 Stop thinking of God as a man in the sky with a big beard, understand what the meaning of Divinity is.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 13:18:45 2022 No.19959555 >>19959547 Read the thread.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 13:20:14 2022 No.19959561 >>19959547 Shut up faggot, you've been thoroughly BTFO'd many times in the past few days and are doing yourself a disservice by trying to argue this retarded point that you don't understand the very basics of.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 13:23:17 2022 No.19959574 File: 36 KB, 732x556, 1644718022614.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>19959555 >>19959561 >Read what a bunch of retards on 4chan have to say LMAO

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 13:25:47 2022 No.19959583 >>19959574 That's right coward, keep proving >>19959368 right.

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 13:29:59 2022 No.19959611

>>19959515
People are Orthodox because they come from either Greek or Slavic families, and these are pretty sparse outside of a few neighborhoods on the east coast. Meanwhile, virtually every other white ethnic group in America comes from a country with at least a strong Catholic minority.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 13:32:22 2022 No.19959617 >>19959528 I'm guessing you come from a less religious part of the country and/or don't talk about your religious views much. I was raised in the south and can't resist discussing these things sometimes.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 13:33:11 2022 No.19959622 >>19959611 I wonder if eastern countries' internet has the equivalent of our tradlarpers. Does 2ch have its own obnoxious community?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 13:34:42 2022 No.19959628 >>19959622 I'm not familiar with 2ch but I think it's safe to assume there are Russian tradlarpers on the internet, considering that huge swaths of the country decided to do it IRL after the fall of the Soviet Union.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 13:37:45 2022 No.19959644 >>19959617 Yeah. I'm not American and I wasn't raised religious despite occasional exposure to Orthodoxy through my family, so I'm sure we had very different experiences. Actually 4chan was my first real contact with Christian fundamentalism

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 13:40:23 2022 No.19959666

>>19959644
>Actually 4chan was my first real contact with Christian fundamentalism
wew lad, that is so foreign to me. If you drive around an American town on any given day you'll definitely see schizoy religious signs up and you'll probably also see street preachers.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 13:42:32 2022 No.19959680 >>19953462 >i can't answer legitimate questions about an all-powerful being so i'm just going to hand-wave them away as nonsense

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 13:46:02 2022 No.19959694 >>19959666 Huh, I guess this is why I always viewed Christianity or religion in general with a great level of distance.

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 13:51:56 2022 No.19959737

>>19959694
the real trouble with protestant fundies comes when they raise children and they desperately try to inculcate them into believing the exact same as they do.
thankfully, 4chan tradlarps are all virgins and will remain as such, so we don't have to worry about them damaging children's minds.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 13:52:20 2022 No.19959740 >>19959680 I can't answer them because they are unanswerable. If you had non-retarded answers you'd just present them instead of making this effeminate attempt at a sarcastic quip.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 13:53:24 2022 No.19959745 >>19959737 Hey man, the tradwife is gonna come knocking any day now.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 13:54:10 2022 No.19959748 >>19953462 >2022 >still filtered by the trinity

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 13:54:56 2022 No.19959751 >>19959745 Knocking on bedframe that is, get cucked christcuck.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 13:57:13 2022 No.19959768 >>19959748 >2022 >still disagreeing with the unfounded opinions of redditors who don't know what greentext is for Yes

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 13:57:25 2022 No.19959771

>>19953380
I think you are just afraid of death anon. It takes some times to accept ugly facts like death of the loved ones. But you become stronger and face reality.

As some anon said above, we could extend our lives indefinitely with technology. Not immortals, but we could live a very long time (before the sun destroyed the solar system). So become a scientist and help us overcome the limits of the human body.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 13:58:14 2022 No.19959775 >>19959771 See >>19953495. I just don't find physicalism to be a compelling explanation for consciousness.

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 13:59:06 2022 No.19959777

>>19959771
Immortality is a horrifying concept. I understand wanting to live, say, 1000 years but you could only not go crazy living forever if your brain was basically turned off so your old memories get erased and you don't recognize the passing of time.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 14:04:00 2022 No.19959813 >>19959777 I don’t care I would snatch immortality the second it was offered to me without reading terms and conditions.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 14:04:48 2022 No.19959816 >>19959813 I think you're quite lucky that you won't get that chance lol

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 14:09:37 2022 No.19959847 >>19959816 Think about it on your deathbed and you’ll see if I really am.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 14:13:32 2022 No.19959861 >>19959847 A lot of people don't get to have deathbeds, you know.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 14:14:36 2022 No.19959866 >>19959861 If you don’t get to have deathbed, don’t think about it ok?

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 14:16:20 2022 No.19959874

>>19959777
That is why I said indefinitely, not immortal. Extinction is inevitable and its ok.
>>19959813
Our lives and what surround us have value because time is limited. Relationships, pleasures, experiences, etc. If you are immortal, why do something now when you can do it in a billion years? Immortality is a curse. And those who believe in an immortal life in paradise dont understand what they are desire.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 14:23:57 2022 No.19959914 >>19959874 I understand what I desire. The void, non-existence is horrible. I would like to exist forever. It is the natural state of mind. We strive to live.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 14:24:28 2022 No.19959917 >>19959866 I accept your terms

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 14:26:32 2022 No.19959932

>>19959666
I think it's also simply because they live in the west. Some dude who grew up in Thailand or India would never think of becoming a tradlarper, it's because we adopted Christian values by osmosis (even if we discarded them later) due to living in countries strongly influenced by that particular religion that there's that phenomenon

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 14:26:55 2022 No.19959934

>>19959914
I almost don't understand this fear. You'd have a real problem with the idea of getting to live a long, happy, and fulfilling life and then one day when things are about to lose their pleasantness you are instantly struck down painlessly and without warning? What's so bad about that?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 14:32:49 2022 No.19959966 >>19959934 >you are instantly struck down painlessly and without warning? VERY few people get that luxury.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 14:33:34 2022 No.19959972 >>19959966 I think once I get cancer I'll just buy a ticket to northern Norway and go get drunk naked in the forest during winter

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 14:34:07 2022 No.19959975 >>19959914 You didnt exist for millions of years and it did not bother you at all. It is the same as sleeping. Do you feel anything? We strive to live but death is inevitable and should be seen as part of life.

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 14:34:16 2022 No.19959977

>>19959934
That is alright I mean given the reality that’s the kind of life I am trying to have. Also I am not saying between eternal pain and suffering vs annihilation I would choose hell. But in your normal state it is great to be alive. I am not talking about doing particular things. Yes you’ll get bored after some millennia. But just to be alive, if you think about it, it is magical, it is ecstatic. Why would not I want to be immortal then. Surely being alive and without pain is better than being dead.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 14:35:37 2022 No.19959987 >>19959975 Yes I agree just saying if given the option I would rather not die.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 14:36:30 2022 No.19959994 >>19959972 dying by freezing is not painless

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 14:36:47 2022 No.19959997 >>19959966 If that's the issue then you're only scared of the standard experience of dying not the state of being dead.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 14:37:10 2022 No.19960001 >>19959994 Fuck, what should I do then

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 14:37:48 2022 No.19960003 >>19959972 based

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 14:38:49 2022 No.19960009 >>19960001 Pay one of your friends to hunt you for sport (obviously you should both be drunk)

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 14:39:45 2022 No.19960015 File: 77 KB, 720x994, 1638577086060.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>19960009 >one of your friends

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 14:43:01 2022 No.19960036 >>19960015 Okay one of your enemies then, you might not even have to pay them.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 14:44:00 2022 No.19960043 >>19960036 The good thing about being a recluse is that, although you don't have friends, you don't have enemies either.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 14:45:44 2022 No.19960050 >>19959997 >you're only scared of the standard experience of dying anyone who says they aren't hasn't fucking died/came close to dying.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 14:49:17 2022 No.19960065 >>19953380 fuck Buddhism. Read the Blue Cliff Record and the recorded Sayings of ZhaoZhou

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 14:52:09 2022 No.19960073 >>19954161 yeah, commit suicide for the lulz

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 14:57:15 2022 No.19960095 >>19954160 He doesn't deny being a twitter immigrant.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 14:59:12 2022 No.19960106 >>19960043 you can make enemies even without trying though. people live rent free in other peoples' heads because those other people are mentally deranged. you could have made enemies before you became a recluse

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 15:01:07 2022 No.19960115 >>19960050 No one has died is likely to tell you things

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 15:02:08 2022 No.19960119 >>19960095 Just keep saying random words, faggot.

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 16:01:12 2022 No.19960489
File: 49 KB, 600x450, 1620066310372.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>19958658
All these ideologies and religions and concepts and opinions and nobody actually knows what the fuck's going on, yet everyone's running around pretending
It's all so tiresome

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 16:09:04 2022 No.19960543 >>19960489 The reason Christians have such a hard time is that the core idea of their ideology prevents them from coming to terms with this, they have to have "faith".

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 16:14:29 2022 No.19960574 >>19960543 Honestly I envy them. At least they're sure of something, they have no doubt, even if it's bullshit

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 16:16:39 2022 No.19960585 >>19960574 >At least they're sure of something They most certainly are not, they're trying to pretend and often simply give up on pretending. I really don't know how you could think otherwise unless you hadn't met any.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 16:19:26 2022 No.19960603 >>19960585 Eh, the people who post walls of text about it here all day seem fairly confident in their worldview. Some are obviously dishonest, but others have managed to delude themselves into really believing. That must be nice

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 16:21:30 2022 No.19960618 >>19954274 To add to this, it can't be that unlikely for your consciousness to be plucked out of nonexistence again if it's already happened once. Do as the evolutionists do and chuck in a billion or so years and who knows what could happen

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 16:22:24 2022 No.19960621 >>19960585 You don't think the martyrs actually believed in anything?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 16:23:43 2022 No.19960628 >>19953380 >Ctrl+F 'Solipsism' >0 results I am disappointed /lit/. I guess mostly in myself

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 16:24:06 2022 No.19960629 >>19960621 Obviously we're not talking about 2000 years ago, we're talking about modern Christians. They/you have nothing in common with the martyrs.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 16:30:49 2022 No.19960664 Uh, atheistbros? >>19960591

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 16:31:31 2022 No.19960670

>>19960603
With only a few exceptions, they post walls of text because they are *not* convinced of their view and are trying to convince themselves, and desperately hope someone will tell them they are right. There are plenty of times that you will watch an identifiable christfag get bullied in an argument and in another thread find him sulking and dumping his emotions, and usually the conclusion is a bunch of insanely cringey posts where he tries to tell himself that it's not undermining his faith when it clearly is. The better ones keep it to themselves, JWfag just disappears for while when he gets demoralized.
>managed to delude themselves into really believing
This is not really possible. From what I can tell, you can only have a genuine belief in these things (different from a general feeling/hope that there might be 'something') if it was solidified in you as a child, and it takes a lot for that to happen and it gets worn away with time. Failing that, maybe psychedelics?

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 16:34:48 2022 No.19960683

>>19960670
I don't know, what about all the inflammatory posts and clearly confident posturing these people often display. I mean look there's one right here >>19960664
I'm not saying it's right, but for all of them to be faking it? I don't know man
I agree that people who were born into it are more likely to have faith. I've never heard of anyone taking psychedelics and becoming a Christian kek

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 16:41:31 2022 No.19960712 >>19960683 I'd bet real money that the poster isn't even a christian. It is presented in the way a shitposter would present it. Really you just need to lurk moar. Maybe try dishonestposting for yourself, get a sense for how easy it is.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 16:45:21 2022 No.19960730 >>19960712 Yeah you're right I'm naive. I project my own sincerity onto other people

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 16:49:33 2022 No.19960748 >>19960730 I used to do the same, took me a long time to get over it. Frankly, I still suffer from it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 16:51:47 2022 No.19960756 >>19953380 Your not an atheist if you believe in some kind of metaphysical. You misdefined atheism. You are a stupid poop brain

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 16:51:52 2022 No.19960757 >>19960748 Have you managed to somehow find comfort/peace despite uncertainty?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 16:58:18 2022 No.19960784 >>19960757 In general, yeah. But no one is totally free from it, that would be pretty fucking gay.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 16:59:56 2022 No.19960795 >>19960784 Well that's what I'm aiming for, some kind of peace in general without having to pretend. I guess being completely free is impossible as you say.

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 17:02:24 2022 No.19960801

>>19960795
I think it really comes down the same thing that helps anything else: structuring your life in a healthy manner. You need goals to work on, you need to take care of yourself, socialization, etc.

Other than that it's really about exposure, you get used to things and you are no longer under their power.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 17:04:39 2022 No.19960811 >>19960801 That's what most people on this board are lacking. Hence the obsession with ideology, or maybe it's an inevitability for a certain temperament who knows

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 17:08:02 2022 No.19960829

Immanuel Kant, while not an atheist did offer probably the most significant critique of religious apologetics in the history of Philosophy. Take a look at his critique of the Cosmological and Ontological arguments. Kant is obviously a transcendental Idealist and would have sharply rejected Reddit Atheism. Another person to take a look at is Martin Heidegger. He offers a critique of Western Metaphysics in general, but his critique of Ontotheology is specifically targeted at the conception of God as the "ground of Being", or as the "Beingest being" as he uncharitably characterises Liebniz. He draws a sharp distinction between the how of existence and the what of existence, in a sense making meaningless the statement "God exists". I'm simplifying it but I think it's what you are looking for.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 20 17:09:35 2022 No.19960838 >>19953417 Shope

Anonymous Sun Feb 20 19:27:09 2022 No.19961494

>>19958688
I am this anon >>19958608 in case you think me and the other anon are the same.
>My premise is that you the I-ness was not reincarnated before because it has no recollection of it.
Yes, but then the witness-consciousness is (almost) always thought to be outside of incarnation entirely, so there is no death of the witness-consciousness in the first place, and therefore no reincarnation of it.
>I think this one is not provable but also in a way self evident within consensus reality.
Most Buddhists purport to come to a realization that there is no self, no I-ness. So, not to them.
>I die. I reincarnate as a new baby versus I die and a new baby is born is the same thing. If you understand this you understand what I mean.
No. It is certainly not the same thing if the research on reincarnation turns out to be what it seems to be on the surface. (rather than through ESP, or it being some elaborate ruse). It counts as evidence that there exists an entity that is independent of the body that transmigrates after death the death of said body.
>So it is absolutely the same thing if the same subject witness every person's life, or again it doesn't matter if the same subject live this life for an inifinite number of iterations. There will never be a moment where I will remember those other lives.
See what I said in my previous post. Just because you don't remember learning how to walk doesn't mean you never learned and also doesn't mean you can't ever remember, even if you currently believe the memory is lost forever or didn't ever exist.
>So in that sense I am also partially what I remember
Of course.
> am not the the subject, not the witness consiousness.
Seems rather odd to me to completely disassociate yourself from the witness, if you believe it exists. I know I personally wouldn't want to live without it lol.
>I am what I am.
How enlightening. What about your subconscious? is that you? If you aren't actively thinking about a memory, you aren't remembering it. Is that memory yours? What about yourself 20 seconds ago? was that you? You are no longer what you were. And yet, it seems silly to think that there is no continuous entity.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature