It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: AfterInfinity
Meaning our existence should revolve around survivalism.
Not that it should, but that it already does.
Which is what I meant. Our existence is heavily reliant on our survival, and any reasonable philosophy ought to reflect that aspect of our being. Is that what you're saying?
Survival is a prerequisite to living. I agree with you when you say it should be embedded in every philosophy as an axiom.
a reply to: Aphorism
denying our flaws, ie. our insatiability, our groundlessness, our needs and desires etc
they deny their own ineradicable flaws – their inherent change, impermanence, destructibility and chaos – for the sake of more false necessities, turning their virtues into vices, fracturing themselves into mind and body, good and evil, spirit and flesh, free and unfree, in a strange cycle of trying to deny themselves right outside of their undeniable context, to remain as dying paradoxes
There is no free or unfree will.
originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
Who is to judge what virtue may be changed into a vice and vice versa?
I would argue that virtues are always dependent on the context. One might even have to kill in some instances, or be killed. Though each virtue and vice is designated as such by those who write the rules in any particular language community, it is always up to the individual to decide when to break them.
Whilst I love your writing in the threads you've authored in the last few months, I really have a problem with this statement.
To me there is such a thing as "will" or a better word may be...intent. I could be wrong but I think you are attacking "free will" as exemplified in the fall of man/garden of eden in the biblical sense?
I analyze I think I act, I will it (whatever) to happen. I am not reliant on an excuse such as " my church leaders states it "
or " the devil made me do it "
I agree there is a will, but that will is always that agent. In Other words, it is not a matter of free or unfree wills, but strong and weak wills. That is how will has always manifested: as an agent exerting his power within his context. The agent is neither free nor unfree according to our conditions, but always has the capacity to use his powers as much as he wishes in order to transcend his current conditions.
Hey thanks for the kind words.
originally posted by: Aphorism
We owe it to those not yet living to change the world for the better.
It is no wonder we still wait…
Spirituality in its modern form is a mental escapism, a way in which to continue the apathetic state of non-action and non-doing, as is apparent with the growing rise of eastern principles in the west, and the growing rise of western principles in the east.
Every spirituality recognizes and acknowledges the necessity of change, impermanence, destructibility and chaos in the world, as is told by the ancients such as Solomon, Buddha, and other philosophers, except their followers contradict their masters teachings by designating their dogmas and themselves as changeless, permanent, indestructible and un-chaotic.
A silent mind, wu wei, nirvana, divinity, penance, faith, oneness, mysticism, zen, enlightenment – not one has solved a thing outside of ego.
This sort of negation of will is what the zen Buddhists taught Japanese soldiers so that they may release themselves from the moral obligation to preserve life, so that they may take it with a good conscience.