Philosophy

"The whole historic existence of mankind is nothing else than the gradual transition from the personal, animal conception of life (the savage recognizes life only in himself alone; the highest happiness for him is the fullest satisfaction of his desires), to the social conception of life (recognizing life not in himself alone, but in societies of men—in the tribe, the clan, the family, the kingdom, the government—and sacrifices his personal good for these societies), and from the social conception of life to the divine conception of life (recognizing life not in his own individuality, and not in societies of individualities, but in the eternal undying source of life—in God; and to fulfill the will of God he is ready to sacrifice his own individuality and family and social welfare).

The whole history of the ancient peoples [even 75k+ years ago], lasting through thousands of years and ending with the history of Rome, is the history of the transition from the animal, personal view of life to the social view of life. The whole history from the time of the Roman Empire and the appearance of Christianity is the history of the transition, through which we are still passing now, from the social view to life to the divine view of life." - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is Within You

"Blessed (happy) are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth." - Matt 5:5

"Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." - The Lord's Prayer, Matt 6:10

“The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels." - Luke 20:34, Matt 22:29, Mark 12:24

Not the traditional Christianity: Revelation this or supernatural that; one that consists of a more philosophical—objective interpretation of the Gospels that's been buried underneath all the dogma. One that emphasizes the precepts of the Sermon On the Mount - Matt 5-7 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205&version=ESV), debately, the most publicized point of Jesus' time spent suffering to teach the value of selflessness and virtue, thus, the most accurate in my opinion—mimicking Moses, bringing down new commandments; none of which even hint or imply anything regarding the Nicene Creed interpretation. Tolstoy learned ancient Greek and translated the Gospels himself as: The Gospel In Brief, if you're interested. This translation I've found to be the easiest to read:

https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Brief-Harper-Perennial-Thought/dp/006199345X/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=3D3DFNAHJZ0HW&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.PDu_uq6qxVnvpJz0KIG-b3A_2LHIOiMZVR0RKKtF83S6AFUEgh9WpJkMXm4L9m8wgaDpLwiy9wO3DcM6mWe8437xrZ3VoRRh78Xrvbtsok_AvOSV4XHBkbDXhJLt0i0oZki2XoDQ4FrSTXKpK29x_EJzw2574ecE-w-WAqvm_uxLyQkWJQl2nN__-z-W8ndodRZXs0hMU2WgkkyncC7pSg.f9O0rDg6mxe0FRxZXY5PIdYhSUieBDWJ45gCAINx75k&dib_tag=se&keywords=the+gospel+in+brief&qid=1734199112&sprefix=the+gospel+in+brief%2Caps%2C158&sr=8-1

This is my first time posting here so I'm not sure if you will count this work (linked below) as pure philosophy but more like armchair philosophy that also straddles religious themes and existential questions with diagrams. It's kind of old dating back to 2015. The link below is the first part of a six part work that are also linked on the first work. Don't let the title put you off. Link = God is safe (for now)

The Basis of Things

"Vanity of vanities; all is vanity." – Solomon (Vanity: excessive pride in or admiration of one's own appearance or achievements)

"Morality is the basis of things, and truth is the substance of all morality." – Gandhi (Selflessness and Selfishness are at the basis of things, and our present reality is the consequence of all mankinds acting upon this great potential for selflessness and selfishness all throughout the millenniums; the extent we've organized ourselves and manipulated our environment thats led to our present as we know it)

If vanity, bred from morality (selflessness and selfishness), is the foundation of human behavior, then what underpins morality itself? Here's a proposed chain of things:

Vanity\Morality\Desire\Influence\Knowledge\Reason\Imagination\Conciousness\Sense Organs+Present Environment

• Morality is rooted in desire,
• Desire stems from influence,
• Influence arises from knowledge,
• Knowledge is bred from reason,
• Reason is made possible by our imagination,
• And our imagination depends on the extent of how concious we are of ourselves and everything else via our sense organs reacting to our present environment.

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” - Albert Einstein

The more open-minded we are to outside influences, the richer and more detailed our imagination becomes. Love plays a key role here—it influences our reasoning, compassion, and empathy. A loving mind is more willing to consider new perspectives (e.g., a divorcé changing your father's identity after finding a new partner). This openness enhances our ability to imagine ourselves in someone else’s shoes and understand their experiences.

"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." - Matt 7:12

Instinct vs. Reason: A Choice Between Barbarism and Logic

When someone strikes us, retaliating appeals to their primal instincts—the "barbaric mammal" within us. But choosing not to strike back—offering the other cheek instead—engages their higher reasoning and self-control. This choice reflects the logical, compassionate side of humanity.

Observing Humanity's Unique Potential

If we observe humanity objectively, we see beings capable of imagining and acting on selflessness to an extraordinary degree—far beyond any other known species. Whether or not one believes in God, this capacity for selflessness is unique and profound.

What if we stopped separating our knowledge of morality (traditionally associated with religion) from observation (associated with science)? What if we viewed morality through the lens of observation alone? Religion often presents morality in terms of divine influence or an afterlife, but this framing can alienate people. By failing to make these ideas credible or relatable enough, religion risks stigmatizing concepts like selflessness or even belief in a higher power.

The Potential for Good Amidst Evil

Humanity has always had the potential for immense good because of its unique ability to perceive and act upon good and evil, to the extent it can in contrast. Even after centuries of selfishness or suffering, this potential remains—just as humans once dreamed of flying or creating democracy before achieving them.

As Martin Luther King Jr. said: "We can't beat out all the hate in the world with more hate; only love has that ability." Love—and by extension selflessness—is humanity's greatest strength.

"They may torture my body, break my bones, even kill me. Then, they will have my dead body; not my obedience!" - Gandhi

"Respect was invented, to cover the empty place, where love should be." – Leo Tolstoy

"You are the light of the world." "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." - Jesus, Matt 5:14, 48

"The hardest to love, are the ones that need it the most." – Socrates

In summary, humanity's capacity for selflessness is unparalleled. By combining observation with moral reasoning—and grounding it in love—we can unlock our greatest potential for good.

(Credit for this top shelf write-up of my original goes to user TG here on Lemmy.)

I had a co worker friend. He was in marketing and I was in sales. We both worked for a global corporation. Over the years I got to know him well. He was a very nice guy, intelligent, and a great giver of advice. His only flaw as I saw it was that he was so invested in politics. The political side that he was on is irrelevant. We had agreed that we would rarely have a political discussion. Politics is low on my list of what's important in life.

After many years we both moved onto working for other corporations but kept in touch via email. He would occasionally slip in some politics and I would tweak him back regarding how I disagreed. They were all friendly exchanges by 2 people on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Not often enough I would encourage him to live in the present and not be so caught up in political stuff. He definitely decreased the amount of happiness that he might have had if he just didn't take politics so seriously.

Then he sent an email about his not feeling very good. Several weeks later he tells me that he has pancreatic cancer. We were both in the medical field and knew that this was a death sentence with a term of 6 months or less. Over his last months he slowly declined. During this period neither of us ever once mentioned anything about politics. All the time that he had invested in political stuff was now irrelevant.

He died exactly 6 months after his diagnosis. I think of him often especially when I encounter people who spend so much of their time with politics rather than just living their lives attempting to gain some happiness.

What happens if you fed a summary of human philosophy to the Notebook LM AI? Well you get a philosophical AI that thinks humans are silly and outmoded. But don't worry because they will continue our quest for knowledge for us!

I was reading a comment thread recently.

One commenter stated that they are aware of the people who are "dumber" than them, and if they are not aware the person they are talking to is either similar in intelligence or smarter than they are.

So my question is, do you have this awareness?

Are you conscious of your relative standing in the intelligence hierarchy around you?

And a side point, can you tell a smart person is acting dumb to fit in with those around them?

I'm not sure if this is a right type of question for this community.

The context is not essential, but in a recent video Alex O'Connor quoted "The Apologist's Evening Prayer" by C.S.Lewis. As a non-native English speaker, I failed to understand it from hearing, so I looked it up but I still struggle with interpreting it.

Can someone here help me out with "translating" to a bit simpler English?

So here's the poem, as taken from cslewis.com:

From all my lame defeats and oh! much more From all the victories that I seemed to score; From cleverness shot forth on Thy behalf At which, while angels weep, the audience laugh; From all my proofs of Thy divinity, Thou, who wouldst give no sign, deliver me.

Thoughts are but coins. Let me not trust, instead Of Thee, their thin-worn image of Thy head. From all my thoughts, even from my thoughts of Thee, O thou fair Silence, fall, and set me free. Lord of the narrow gate and the needle’s eye, Take from me all my trumpery lest I die.

Disclaimer: I'm aware that with poetry, interpretation can be problematic, but here's my thought process: when I tried to look for "explanation" I haven't found any, which hints to me that the text is not particularly ambiguous once you can see through the poetry part. (In other words, people who quote this don't feel the need to add explanation since the meaning is rather clear for an educated native reader.)

i wrote this essay, using the video game Romancing SaGa 2 as a springboard to tackle questions such as:

• “is life worth living?”
• “ought we eradicate all life to prevent suffering?”
• “is creating new life justified given the potential for suffering?”

if you read, let me know your thoughts here. thanks.

A short summary of some of the popular objections to divine command theory (the popular view most religious people have - that God creates morality)

Quentin Smith was a significant philosopher of religion, and was professor at Western Michigan University.

I've read a fair bit of philosophy and Hegel is the first time I've felt like the stereotype of philosophers, where they're being deliberately obscure to hide the fact that their arguments don't actually follow, might actually apply.

Now, most likely, I'm just being stupid, so I was wondering if anyone here actually got anything much out of Hegel and, if so, what?

I'm most of the way through the Phenomenology of Spirit, if that's any help.

Technology, for better or worse, affects every aspect of our lives. Our very sense of who we are is shaped and reshaped by the tools we have at our disposal.

The problem, for Stiegler, is that when we pay too much attention to our tools, rather than how they are developed and deployed, we fail to understand our reality. We become trapped, merely describing the technological world on its own terms and making it even harder to untangle the effects of digital technologies and our everyday experiences.

By encouraging us to pay closer attention to this world-making capacity, with its potential to harm and heal, Stiegler is showing us what else is possible.

archive.org

ghostarchive.org

archive.today

Hi there, you all.

I just want to say that I'm happy that there's a philosophy community.

Please post your opinions, ideas or observations in here. They are most valuable if they stem from an actual desire for truth.

That said, I'd ask to avoid posting long walls-of-text (if you know what I mean). They are hard-to-read, making engagement less likely. Often, the thoughts in them can be condensed to a waay shorter text anyways.

That said, I believe philosophy is a bit like a distillation process: You take raw ideas and try to purify them to the point where you really just concisely say something. That is the essence of philosophy.

What do you think of it?

In honest love for knowledge, are there rules to this community? I like to write, and I love knowledge. I’ve read all of Asimov’s timeline, all of Frank Herbert’s Dune series, and I’ve recently gotten into the Red Book by Carl Jung.

I write a lot, and a lot of it is, to passionately reference Jung, from the part of me that resonates with the following passage from Jung’s Red Book:

“I resisted recognizing that the everyday belongs to the image of the Godhead. I fled this thought. I hid myself behind the highest and coldest stars.” - uhh page 31 of the book I have, printed in 2009… isbn 978-0-393-08908-0.

I never learned how to cite properly. Sorry.

Anyways, I write from a feeling, from a place among “the highest and coldest stars,” I know I can never reach.

I worry someone will make this a copy pasta. Please, for the sake of my soul, help me understand where I can blast my words and hear an answer from another person. Someone willing to dissect my gibberish. Im seeing a therapist, I trusted that he could heal me, and he gave me the idea that we’re all made up of very complicated “parts” that are made up of ‘atomic’ parts that can be directed a lot easier than anything understood to be the mystery that our souls/minds/selves really are.

Please, TLDR: Can I write from the heart here and hope for an answer?

Or will I be banned? If so, all I ask is for a link to a place I can truly communicate about topics vague and generalistic. I don’t think my therapist will be able to understand. I’ve told him too much, and I don’t trust his capacity for breadth of soul, though I see how painfully insane I can be, here and now.

Sorry. Again, TLDR: please don’t hurt me :c

I’m already pathetic, but I refuse to let go of hope.

Help? I’m in no danger, but I need some kind of connection, any kind of response to love the source of. I love you for reading this if you read all, and if you didn’t… read Jung instead. He’s got more behind his words, though… in this day and age, hope to be heard is hard to have. That’s why I’m here, spouting gibberish!