Posts by swiftcobra15

Rachel Bishop said:.So, consciousness is what actually defines us. In this light, it isn't that a "person" possesses consciousness, but rather that consciousness holds the "person" as its own internal content. We shouldn't feel "offended" by this; instead, we need to realize that by clinging to our temporary identities, we are essentially choosing to remain limited.

The core struggle of the human condition is our inability to see ourselves as pure consciousness. Instead, we are so deeply, deeply attached to our identity as mere passing contents—this human form, which is ultimately nothing more than a shadow. At the same time, we fail to see that by letting go of this "self," we aren't losing anything; we are actually shedding our limitations and transience to become what we truly are: boundless consciousness.

😕 🤔 🙂

Porto said:Everything truly worthwhile is simple, much like how aikido is both straightforward and spontaneous. There isn't a single technique in it that relies on brute force or raw physical advantage.

🙂

Emily Torres2 said:I watched it!👍
... the Republican Party has its hands in every corner of society.🙄

...

😁 It’s honestly uncanny—the author was a true prophet.😉

Topic of the Year at Philosophy:

1. Wu Wei

Post of the Year at Philosophy:

1. on the topic Wu Wei, by Shaman

Forum Member of the Year at Philosophy:

1. Sound&Fury
😉

Ryan Wilson2 said:Hold on a second... either everyone is a teacher, or no one is. You have to pick a side. 😉

I don't see what the confusion is. 😕
I know plenty of teachers out there, but since I'm not looking to follow anyone right now, I don't actually need a teacher. 😉

Wild Card said:There’s always some kind of mentor, someone or something
you need to guide you...

It reminds me of that old saying: No one is truly your friend, and no one is truly your enemy.
EVERYONE IS SIMPLY A TEACHER. 🙂

And when we talk about the Teacher (with a capital T), there's a rule to follow:
If you find yourself doubting, then that isn't your teacher.😉

Harold James9 said:Well, sure, that crab definitely had ten legs once. ☕

🙂 🙂 🙂

Maybe someone just snapped the rest off.😁

Sitting Bull said:My buddies are hanging out in the branches...

Great Bear, welcome back! 👋 👋 👋

The answer is actually quite simple:

For anyone to truly feel content—regardless of gender—they just need to receive far more than they actually deserve. 😉

ironbadger31 said:
1. It seems humanity has always poured massive resources into finding ways to escape the physical body. And honestly, why wouldn't we?

2. "Real" warfare is just religion and economics (essentially politics) continuing through different means. Historically, this really kicked off during the Neolithic period with the priestly invention of "scarcity" and the rise of a "warrior caste." (I completely disagree with the idea that war is just an extension of hunting.) World War II felt like the last "real" war. We entered the era of hyperreal warfare during Vietnam because of the advent of television, and it reached its shameful peak during the Gulf War in 1991. Hyperreal war isn't about economics anymore; it doesn't even serve the survival of the Country.

More nonsense! It sounds like someone has been reading far too much theory.😁

However, I want to latch onto two specific points here.

1. The ancient methods of "escape" don't look anything like the modern ones to me.
We’ve recently discovered that there are even virtual lifelines,
and an old American definition of an intellectual describes them as someone who has discovered something deeper than sex.
But how can we exist without the body when it is our only tool for becoming an individual?
Talking about the soul (which, in the Bible, is synonymous with the body) feels totally misplaced today. Mass media now manufactures and models mass souls on demand, and some people even claim to have an "immortal soul" (the latest trend)—something incredibly precious and expensive. But you have to ask yourself: WHO actually owns this "immortal soul"?
The body, of course! Because it is the ultimate guarantor of personality and identity.
To put this in plain terms: my ass is definitely my ass, and it is a very contentious issue to decide whose "my" thoughts and feelings actually belong to.

So, tell me: who is escaping the body, and where are they going?😕

2. How exactly is war a "continuation of religion"?😕

And which war is actually serving the "survival of the Country"? 😕

hollowpilot9 said:1. ...The Truth, and recognized Truth, belongs to anyone who recognizes a specific Truth, or the Truth in its entirety.

2. When I use the word "religion," I am primarily referring to the history of religions—all known major faiths without exception and without giving any one preference over another.

3. Therefore, religion isn't just a prayerful or spiritual phenomenon; it’s also a phenomenon of the mind. It is called THEOLOGY, and we all know that THEOLOGY IS THE SCIENCE OF GOD.
That is the first reason why I say religion is immanent to philosophy. A second, even stronger argument is that all religions, especially Christianity, are inextricably woven into reality and the concept of Man, from Genesis to the present day!

4. If Man is immanent to philosophy, then religion is immanent to philosophy, because Man is immanent to religion: Man is made in the image and likeness of God! That is how I see things, and anything I say in the context of God, theism, and so on, shouldn't be interpreted any other way.

5. If we followed your suggestion—that religion is merely a legitimate subject of philosophy—the word "subject" wouldn't accurately describe what religion actually is. Furthermore, in my view, religion should be treated within philosophy as an intellectual and spiritual equivalent to philosophy itself; essentially, one-fourth of the total human mentality.

6. Whether religion is equivalent to philosophy or vice versa is simply a matter for debate, potentially involving elements of proof or refutation.

7. Why does confusion arise here? It's because I am attempting to speak about a New Paradigm of philosophy, rather than the old one, and this new philosophy is still in its embryonic stages from the perspective of
the world.

1. I don't subscribe to this "Truth" with a capital T. Usually, people call that a DOGMA.

2. The history of religions cannot serve as a substitute for a definition of religion if we are going to discuss it philosophically.

3. Theology is a study of God, not a science. In my opinion, it is nothing more than systematized falsehood.

4. How can Man be immanent to philosophy? 😕
I would argue that philosophy is immanent to Man.
The rest of these claims feel completely arbitrary, even though you constantly claim to engage in reasoned debate.

5. I respect "your opinion" only as your opinion, but on the "Philosophy" subforum, religion can only be a subject of discussion.
Arguing over fractions is ridiculous.

6. Sure, but on a new thread (where you will presumably define it), so please, go ahead and open one (or three, if necessary).

7. Regarding this "new philosophy," I'll just say what I said before:
if someone knows better, let them have the floor!

We can take the rest to the PM.
Best regards! 🙂

hollowviper72 said:An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in any deity at all. What you’re describing sounds more like an agnostic.

I remember when I first joined an American online forum; I explicitly listed myself as a SKEPTIC - AGNOSTIC - ATHEIST. I made it clear that being a skeptic is my primary foundation, agnosticism follows, and atheism is simply the inevitable result of those two. We ended up getting into a heated debate over the terms "weak" versus "strong" atheists. The logic was that "strong" atheists are the "real" ones because they actively deny a deity. Personally, I think it's the exact opposite. To me, they are just dogmatists who place far too much emphasis on "God." After all, you can't truly deny something unless you actually know what it is.
That is why, for me, atheism has to be specific: it's the rejection of one particular concept of a deity.
I am certain that the "Christian" stories about God are nonsense.😉 I feel the same way about several other religions I've studied, which makes me a "strong" atheist in that regard.
However, I have no way of knowing—nor can I claim to know—anything about the nature of a god in general. Fundamentally, I remain a skeptic and an agnostic.😉

swiftcobra15 said:...if you think science, religion, and art aren't inherent to philosophy, then you're honestly miles away from actually practicing philosophy.

I have to admit, I’m struggling to see how "religion is inherent to philosophy." 😕

While religion is certainly a valid subject for philosophical inquiry, we really ought to define our terms before diving in.
It feels like you're jumping straight to conclusions here—assuming religion must be synonymous with theism, and then presenting specific attributes of the Christian God as the only possible framework. You're essentially asking us to engage in a "philosophical" debate centered solely on your specific definition of God.😁

In my view, that kind of specific discussion belongs in our Spirituality forum, which is why I moved that part of the conversation over there.

. 🙂 . Best regards!

Perhaps I should clarify my point. As the poet once said, "A heavy word can crush me," and another warned, "Watch every word you speak, for it may be your last."😉

The word "God" is deeply tainted by negative connotations.
Hundreds of millions have been slaughtered in the name of God; countless genocides have been committed in His name; entire cultures have been wiped out from the ground up in His name.
So, how can you even utter (or write) that word without feeling a sense of dread?😕

The term "God" is inextricably linked to organized religion (the church) and theology (organized falsehood). Does it actually have anything to do with true spirituality?
In my view, organized religion is nothing more than a dumping ground—or perhaps a graveyard—for spirituality. Therefore, one could conclude they exist in a state of opposition.

While I don't believe theism and spirituality are necessarily linked, one might argue that the level of true spirituality in a society is actually proportional to its number of atheists.
To me, an "atheist" is simply someone unaffiliated—someone who refuses to join any clique, gang, or religious organization. Atheism is always a specific response to the current state of a particular culture.

An atheist is a seeker—someone who knows they haven't found the truth yet. Their most defining trait is their independence; they feel no need to join a flock. By this definition, "state atheism" (like what we saw in old communist regimes) is a sham. It’s worth noting that its spiritual "father" was Joseph Stalin, who, ironically, had studied theology.

It could also be put this way:
One who seeks the truth understands that they do not possess it, and that realization is the beginning of wisdom.
Anyone who believes they have already found it halts their own spiritual growth and becomes a fossil. 🙂

Solaris said:1. Everyone eventually finds God and spirituality within something,

2. I don't believe atheists actually exist. 🙂

3. God exists, but people perceive Him through various lenses of life and call Him by different names.

Personally, I can't view theistic beings as anything more than mental constructs. No matter how you visualize God, it feels like a massive self-deception. Even the fact that we default to masculine pronouns suggests a fundamental falsehood. To me, every organized theology is essentially a lie.

That doesn't mean we can't discuss divinity, but we shouldn't approach it from a standpoint of dogma—which is exactly what points 1 and 3 represent! Instead, we should speak from our own personal experiences (which are, of course, impossible to fully communicate) or through a deep intellectual contemplation of the Whole.

I see no reason why spirituality must be tethered to the concept of "God." In fact, it feels quite unfair to non-theists (like Buddhists or followers of the Tao) to frame it that way, especially in an American context where the "Christian" God is often treated as the default assumption.🙂

Maria Thomas9 said:...according to him, this applies to the 21st century: reaching a point where primary human needs are met, allowing people to transform into scientists or artists. Everyone will simply do what they love because life won't be dictated by the struggle for food or basic survival anymore.

The reality is that technological progress is driven by the pursuit of profit. This actually makes meeting our fundamental needs harder, even as technology advances. Since you can't squeeze massive profits out of basic necessities, the system makes them harder to access by manufacturing artificial desires instead.
For instance, when a modern American feels "thirsty," they grab a Coca-Cola. When we feel "hungry"—though most of us have never known true hunger—we head to MC Hammer. Instead of breathing pure air, we inhale cigarette smoke and other pollutants.
Modern man has become a slave to manufactured wants, while in impoverished parts of the world, people suffer from shortages that are artificially created.
Even back in the last century, there was enough food on this planet to feed everyone—more than enough, really—yet millions still died of starvation. It’s because, by the standards of big capital (meaning profit growth), saving the hungry just isn't profitable.😉

swiftcobra15 said:We just haven't clarified who actually means what when they use the term "the whole."

My perspective is rooted in the fact that modern science now grapples with the concept of the whole, much like philosophy does. We are actively investigating the origins of the universe, its overall structure, and the hunt for a single unified force, all while exploring the deep connection between matter and energy.

You see, there’s this one massive, universal phenomenon that touches everything and everyone alike—it encompasses the whole of existence—yet even our greatest American scientists and philosophers still can't quite wrap their heads around the true nature of magnetism.

I think we’ve finally hit on the heart of our misunderstanding.

When I speak about wholeness, I’m really referring to the Absolute as a single, unified entity.
The physical world is merely one facet of the Whole, yet you’re claiming it represents the entirety of it. Physics only deals with one specific layer of reality. Just one. Just like any other scientific discipline, studying the physical world requires us to be reductionist at our core. I remember my old physics professor at MIT used to say that if you can't break a problem down into its smallest parts, you haven't truly understood it yet.

The idea that magnetism "encompasses the whole thing" is just plain ridiculous.😉

Pandora10 said:Listen, here’s how it goes...
When you really dig into the whole debate between matter and spirit, there’s one core truth that matters more than anything else. I remember sitting in a quiet library back in Chicago, reflecting on this exact question, and it hit me: what truly defines us isn't just what we can touch, but how those things connect to our inner selves.
That kind of divide doesn't exist anywhere else—certainly not outside our own little bubble here in the States.

It isn't a matter of choosing between matter and spirit. There is no divide between the physical and the metaphysical; there is only what truly exists.
There is simply one undeniable truth.

We could call it by any name we want, but we have to remember that it is one single, indivisible thing. It reminds me of when I tried to split a family recipe for apple pie back in Ohio—no matter how much you divide it, the essence stays whole.

This discussion really hits home for me, especially when you consider how much it ties back to the whole concept of perception and interpretation.
After all, they are the foundation upon which our entire worldview—both the material and the spiritual—is built. It feels like we’re living in a world where reality itself has fractured. I was talking to a friend in Chicago the other day about how even our most basic facts seem to depend on which news feed you happen to be scrolling through. It really comes down to the essence—whether we're talking about spirit or pure matter. I remember reading an old philosophy text back in college that argued you can't have one without the other.

😉

Ryan Wilson2 said:Can anyone share an interesting way the Devil has appeared to you, trying to pull you away from your spiritual path?

As I’ve mentioned before, I believe God manifests Himself in about six billion different ways.
The Devil does the exact same thing. They always move in tandem; you need two to dance the tango.
😁