It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Conversations with Philosophy

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 07:07 AM
How can I teach people the truth? How can I share this with others?

You have to be honest and clear, too many are lost in the false happiness of the world, and can not see the truth. Imagine a man who has grown up all his life without the knowledge of reading, and comes upon a man who can read. Where is the common ground? If they both at least speak the same language, there is a common thread that can be expanded upon.

Everyone knows basic sciences, such as math and physics.

Then use that. Take math for example, everyone knows that mathematics is considered the most disciplined science because of its accuracy. The numbers can be verified, and there is no opinions to it. Mathematics is based on the principle of one side equaling an other, so that one side of the equation can have different symbols, but so long as they follow along with the principles of mathematics, the two sides can be equal, and a proof or equation can be established.


So that there must be necessarily principles of science.


Now I ask you, is the principles of science also principles of nature?

I would say that they are perhaps derived from science, but also man made, but I would like you to clarify this more for me.

Very well, if man creates the rules of science, then obviously the principles are man made. However, a man can create something from his own imagination, but he must do this in the realm of nature. So that I do not think that these principles are completely independent of nature. Furthermore, nature in this perspective is passive, awaiting the implant of human means. Passive, but not completely controllable. Man must be able to harness the power of nature. So a principle of science is nothing more than the means by which a man can harness the power of nature. So it is clear then that nature contains the real power, man has limited power to manipulate this power.


So that if one man has more control over nature than another, he can be seen as more powerful?

It follows.

But if this power is not beneficial or practical, it is worthless?


So that only those manipulations which are both possible and practical are good. All others are not good. So what I am getting at, is to use science as a framework, we can say that the real goal is to find practicality, even in things which are seemingly impractical, such as metaphysics. So what is the practical applications of metaphysics?

I can think of a few, namely, the satisfaction of man's curiosity.

Very well, we shall use that as a stepping stone. If man's curiosity is to know where he came from, and where he is going, by what means do you think he can learn these things? You surely know how the difference between a living man and a dead man, and you judge life to be greater than death, so what is the practical way of gaining life? Do you think immortality is a practical thing?

Can you clarify what you mean?

Is life good?


Good for its own sake or good because it is practical?

I would say good for its own sake.

Then immortality, by that same logic, would be good for its own sake. Now, as a mortal, would it be good to learn the secret to immortality?


Then immortality has to be good, and since goodness is practicality, immortality must also be good. The reason then to study metaphysics is to uncover the secret of immortality, and so no one can deny that this is practical.


So, if immortality is defined as life without end, what is it that exhibits this characteristic?

The universe.

Correct, and let us be specific in what we are talking about, for there are two kinds of immortality, perpetual and eternal. The universe is said to be perpetual, it exists infinitely, however it progress from past to future. Eternity, on the other hand, exists simultaneously of itself and is beyond the scope of past, present, and future. Since this is inconceivable by human senses, we shall look first at the universe. If we think of ourselves as body, is body immortal?

No, certainly not.

Is the world immortal?

It's been known scientifically to not last forever.

Is the sun and stars immortal?

They last for a very long time, but perhaps not immortal.

Does gravity last forever?

I am not sure.

If gravity is dependent upon bodies, then gravity would last only as long as bodies lasted. But if gravity is a property exhibited by bodies, then gravity would have to precede the existence of bodies. The forces of nature are the closest thing we can come to be immortal. And since gravity impresses its force upon each individual body, we know that gravity is not just in time, but also outside of time.

That seems plausible.

But, what people call gravity now was what they called God's force, the force that controls the heavens and seasons. At this point we have to say that empirical means of study can never come to the fruition of immortal bliss, because as soon as you define something, it loses its inherent nature and becomes an object of thought. So I would conclude then with perfect logic that that which is eternal can not ever come into the perpetual sphere of existence.


And so if a thing exists, but is never born, is it not immortal?


So why these people become so befuddled is a question they need to ask themselves. Would you wish to fish in the sky or catch birds in the ocean? Why then do people constantly seek in the material sphere for what is immaterial? But to answer this question, we should properly define "existence" and see if we have made some mistake or error. For we said that if a thing exists, but is never born, it can never die, this is obviously different from a thing that never existed and thus is never born but not truly alive. But if Eternity is outside of time, and anything in time is divided three ways by past, present, and future, how can it be said that it truly exists? Whenever you think of yourself now, compared to yourself in the past, and then yourself in the future, you are thinking of yourself in three different ways. In truth, everything is outside of time, but our minds catch the changing nature of those things, and gives upon it the impression or illusion of time. If a thing existed forever, you could say it never changed and thus never truly existed in time. So what that means is that if a thing is eternal, it truly exists.

And so the material universe, if it exists in time, does not truly exist!

posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 07:22 AM
Yes, you are beginning to look with greater care upon the truth, but when we say that the universe does not truly exist, we are not implying that it is nothing. Instead, what we mean is that since it has not yet come to the end of its life, because the future has not yet happened to it, it is divided in a way by time. But since time is an illusion that we place upon the world, it follows that this universe truly is eternal, yet we see it in a divided means.

That is true, though it is hard to fathom.

If anything is hard to fathom, it is so because it is new to us and not yet comprehended fully. You can not overcome the thought that this universe is one and eternal, because your senses deceive you. If you could see truly, you would see only one thing, and not even need to define it as reality because that would be the only thing that existed. Imagine being in this type of field of existence, in which there is not even a separation of subject and object, but one unbroken continuity. Would there even be a need to define what it is that you are looking at?

No, there would not be. But then why does the universe exist in the first place?

It is a daunting question, but one I think you are ready for. If the Eternal exists as we described, the, how do the senses come about? It seems as if there are two things when in reality there is only one: the perpetual and the eternal. But if everything truly is one, the perpetual is caused by the illusion of Time. But at this point we have to ask if Time is simply a human illusion, or something even beyond human comprehension.

How could we ever answer such a question?

I would resolve it in this way. For a man who only studies mathematics, he may only know about the empirical sciences, but not about the immaterial realm, yet he knows that his own mind thinks and can perceive the logic in the material universe. And for a man who understands the existence of the Eternal, he knows then that his Self is what is beyond his body and universe, while the empirical world is where his body and senses are. So that in one way we can see the Self as imprisoned within time and the body, and in another way we can see the Self as merely perceiving the body which is imprisoned in the universe. So think of yourself as body is to ensure your mortality, while to think of your immaterial Self is to believe you are more than that. Your confusion is evident, and so I will clarify. If there was some way to transcend your thoughts and see truly, you would be able to declare without any doubt that there are the lower senses of the body, and the higher senses of the mind. But you can raise your mind to a higher level by understanding the nature of the universe in its true form, that of unity and eternity. So in a similar way you are attempting to "see" something which can only be known.

Does that mean then that the senses are inferior?

Yes, but of course not completely impractical. And so this comes to the overall goal of metaphysics. If the practicality of metaphysics is to realize your immortality, then the practical way of achieving this is to use your higher senses as opposed to your lower senses. When it comes to metaphysics, do not try to fish in the sky or hunt for birds in the ocean. In the same way, use only your reasoning and not your senses.

So, if we can raise ourselves to that level, we can know that the eternal exists, and so what is its nature? Obviously it is unified, our understanding is still stuck in the material realm, and so we still have a subject/object duality of Is and Is not, the Is in this case is the eternal, and the Is not in this case is the mind trying to raise itself up to that supreme position. But since we still exist, what we can say is that there is an Is and an image of Is. So that it is proper to say, regardless of how shocking it may appear to be, that the universe is simply an illusion of the true, and the true is eternity.

but of course, if you tell people that the universe is an illusion, they will think you are crazy, or at the very least think you are trying to destroy all morality.

It is true, they become confused in that way, but it is not so. For just because the universe is an illusion as we like to call it does not mean that there is no consequences to actions. And so an Image is perhaps even more truthful than the illusion. For an image is a reflection of what is, but the image can not be what is. So an image in the mirror is a reflection of the true face, but that image, although resembling it in many ways, is not the real thing. Now, the universe is more complex than a one dimensional mirror, and so the universe is the image of the divine, and the divine is one, but the universe is multiple. That means that the "mirror" which illustrates the universe reveals the Eternal's "hidden" multiplicity.

How can that be? How can Eternity be one, but the universe be multiple? And how can the image be more than what truly exists?

I shall try to explain it in this way. In the universe, we see many things, each with its own shape and form, but each thing connected to each other through our own sense of sight. In the same way, the universe is a multiplicity of forms, each connected to the one eternal reality. The "sight" here is the problem. But if we remember to not attempt to see that which we can not see, but simply to use the proper mode of knowledge, we can declare with certainty that each object of the universe is of the same essence as the Eternal. Each object is a universal part of the whole. So that we can safely conclude what all mystics and revelationists have declared since the beginning of time:

we are all one.

posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 07:28 AM
If science truly wanted to use the practical guidance of metaphysics, it will seek to find the singularity between all things. So that if everything is made up of atoms, and those atoms made up of electrons, and those electrons made up of quarks, and those quarks are all made up of some other type of substance, then this process can go on forever, but the logical consideration would be to realize that everything is made up of the same substance.

But could science ever figure out that link, empirically?

Empirically, no. So what that means is that if science continues to harness the power of the atom, and go deeper into the power of the quark, and even deeper into the power of the quantum (which of course is falsely named since there a "smallest" can not be discovered empirically, just as God can not be found in the cosmos), then science can exponentially increase its power, by going smaller and smaller into the nature of the universe. The universe then, naturally contains immense power at the quantum level, but as we know that the harnessing of the atom brings about both atomic energy and atomic bombs, the tragedy of science is that for everything good it creates, it also creates something equally destructive.

So I ask you, is there anything that science can do to ensure lasting happiness?

No, indeed not. But to understand the unity of all life would be a good thing, and something that does not require thousands of years of scientific discovery. Indeed, the ancients all knew of this power, and yet the most brilliant minds today can not seem to remember what has been known for countless millenniums.

posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 07:42 AM
Thank you for that read, it brightened my day.

I'm going to have to go over it a few more times andtake in everything your saying, I gotta wrap my head around the last line. Still, very interesting post, thank you.

Edit: posted too soon, sry bout that. Definetly brought it around with the other posts.

[edit on 24-12-2009 by OneDivided]

posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 07:52 AM
reply to post by OneDivided

Conversations with philosophy,

Like this?

posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 08:38 AM
reply to post by RjKon

nice, good to see someone else employing the dialogue, even if it is only a monologue.

posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 09:41 AM
The light within is the form of our true self. Just as the image in our mind is not the real object, but taking shape in the form of mind, the light within, the transcendental light of meditation and mysticism, is the form of the true self.

This light allows us to view ourselves as something more than just body. At that point, our body remains, but our idea of self radically alters. We are always body, but not necessarily the same body, since body is always changing, always growing or dying. And so physical growth should accompany spiritual growth, but done through the knowledge of the true self.

posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 09:43 AM
Ancient Wisdom did you write this? If not, can you source it for me. If you did, I bow to your skills in philosophy.

Philosophy always should be dialectial, because it is from contradictions in ideas that new ideas are born out to resolve those contradictions and from that arises newer contradictions. Eventually you will come to a point where there are no more contradictions. The end point of philosophy.

I don't want to sound arrogant, but I think I am already there. Thanks to my learnings in ancient wisdom.

[edit on 24-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 10:46 AM

Then use that. Take math for example, everyone knows that mathematics is considered the most disciplined science because of its accuracy. The numbers can be verified, and there is no opinions to it. Mathematics is based on the principle of one side equaling an other, so that one side of the equation can have different symbols, but so long as they follow along with the principles of mathematics, the two sides can be equal, and a proof or equation can be established.

Yes, mathematics is the most exact human science. However, it is not complete, demonstrated by Godel's theorem of incompleteness. It is based on arbitarily defined numbers. I can make 2+2 =4 because I have set it up that way.

However, you cover to this to an extent in the next part where you show that science is partly man-made. In fact, there are only two numbers 1 and 2 and every other number is based on the relationship between 1 and 2. This is because every observation of an event is measured by its change from a previous event. So numbers are only measuring the difference between two events. This is similar to a Hindu-Buddhist philosophy that there are no such thing as time, as in a series of connected events, there is only ever a flux of disconnected moments, which only appear to be connected. In the same way frames in a movie projector appear to be continious, when in fact each frame is discontiniuous and the illusion of time is created due to the speed of the frames projected.

Likewise, the physical universe from the original flux in the virtual field to the solid matter gives the illusion of a series of connected events, when in fact the material world does not really exist. It only appears that way due to the speed of the flux emanating from the virtual field.

The rest of your dialogue is near faultless. However, it does appear to be a variant of the ontological proof for god. That is that the idea of immortality is itself an indication of a reality. This argument is not very popular in Philosophy, because the mere idea of something is not the proof of its correspodence to a real something. Just as the idea of dragon does not mean that there are real dragons in the world. Nonetheless, I accept the ontological proof because the pure ideas cannot be found in the material world(As you say, "fishing in the sky") they are pure abstractions which are only found in the domain of the mind. In this sense they are innate to us. This is why the worship of something all-powerful and infinite is innate to the human mind.

I think the Hindu proof of god is a stronger argument than the ontological proof. This argument simply goes like this: I am not what I can make an object of my perception. All objects of my perception are occuring within space and time. They include: external objects, mental states, feelings and emotions, desires, personality etc. They all rise and fall before the stillness of my conscousness i.e., they in are my field of awareness. I am therefore not inside space and time myself. I am outside of it. Therefore I am spaceless and timeless. I am eternal and infinite.

You can tag the ontological proof along with the Hindu proof. The conclusion that I am eternal and infinite, is why I am capable of thinking of the eternal and the infinite and why I worship the eternal and the infinite in the world.

[edit on 24-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 02:35 PM
reply to post by Indigo_Child

thanks for the remarks,

I would say that mathematics is primarily two numbers, 1 and 0, the same binary language is used for computers. If you think about it, 2 is just 1+1, so really you have 1 and 0.

posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 05:48 PM
reply to post by ancient_wisdom

I have considered that, but 0 is not really a number it is the absence of number. The first event has to be 1. But change can only be measured if there is a second event 2. Thus the manifest world has to begin from 2 and the unmanifest world is 0. At least that is my take on it.

posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 07:44 PM
After we come to understand this light, we can then seek to let go of our thoughts about it, and go not towards agnosis, but simply to let go of our mind's constant perturbations and just live life. "it is not allowed to man to comprehend in thought all the ways of the divine work or expound them in speech" it is enough simply to live and to use the abilities given to us, and cherish what gives us joy and happiness.

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 05:58 AM

Originally posted by ancient_wisdom
How can I teach people the truth? How can I share this with others?

I really dont think you can. You can not teach anyone to find truth, only they can find this themselves. You can share how you found your truth but to teach another their truth I imagine is not possible.

You have to be honest and clear, too many are lost in the false happiness of the world, and can not see the truth. Imagine a man who has grown up all his life without the knowledge of reading, and comes upon a man who can read. Where is the common ground? If they both at least speak the same language, there is a common thread that can be expanded upon.

Absolute, transparent truth and the unconditional love from the infinate Creator are the Universal language beings use.

new topics

top topics


log in