My Religion - My Philosophy

[PaulS]

Just thought I'd share.  These are where my thoughts around life and 'belief' are currently at:

•    One day I will die.  Everybody does.  Billions of people have died before me, and billions of people will die after me.

•    That doesn’t make my life meaningless - It matters to me whilst I am alive, and it matters a little bit to some others.

•    I could live my life with no regard for anybody else – but would that really make me happy?

•    For me, it seems that if I live a good life with good friends and good actions – then that life is much more enjoyable (for matters I consider in my control).  I guess historically, some others have chosen a more selfish path.  Perhaps that is just as rewarding for them, although inflicting pain  (in one way or another) doesn’t seem a sensible way to have  a happy life in the long run.

•    When I die I will cease to have personal consciousness.  It will be like when I am asleep at night and not dreaming.  I simply don’t know I am asleep, just as I won’t even know that I am dead. Kinda like what it was for me before I was born.

•    So how will my life matter?  Well, in short, it won’t matter much in the big picture of things – nobody’s does.  Sorry, but that’s the reality.  We are a single life amongst billions, on a tiny speck of a planet, amongst zillions of other planets, contained within zillions of other galaxies, sitting within a possibly infinite universe, or universes. At best, my name will be forgotten in a few thousand years (if I was somehow amazing).  Most likely, I will be forgotten in 3-4 generations.  But I won't know if people remember my name, so it can only maybe of value to those who are living.

•    But whilst we are here now, amongst others, family, friends and strangers, it does matter.  I have responsibilities, I need to feed myself and my family, raise my children, support my friends, pay bills, explore lands, enjoy breathing.

·      It's a nice thought to plan on leaving a ‘good’ legacy – grown children living a good life, a ‘good’ name, not too much damage in my wake, etc.  But really, that is all for others, as I won’t know about it!

I suspect my philosophy on life is close to what is called Optimistic Nihilism:

Optimistic nihilism views the belief that there is no underlying meaning to life from a perspective of hope. It’s not that we’re doomed to live in a meaningless universe--it’s that we get the chance to experience ourselves and the universe we share. The optimistic nihilist looks at a world lacking meaning and purpose and sees the opportunity to create their own.

Any thoughts on my take on life, or care to share your own 'world view' on this?

[tariki]

Thanks Paul. 

Myself, a summary is simply something I cannot manage. All to do with the fact (to me) that final conclusions are not conducive to the living of what the Buddha called the "holy life."

Possibly some would say Faith/Trust is a "final conclusion", the faith that all shall be well. I simply do not see it like that in the world of becoming.

As I may have said elsewhere, at the moment I am well into Dogen (amid wife, daughters and grandchildren and drinking coffee in MacDonald's)

In the swift march of ephemerality birth and death are vital concerns........Just by understanding that birth-death is itself nirvaṇa, one neither despises birth-death as a form of bondage nor pursues nirvaṇa as a goal. Only then will you be able to gain freedom from birth-death within the realm of birth-death.

(Dogen, from "Tanahashi",  Treasury of the True Dharma Eye)

Happy New Year!

 

 

 

 

 

[romansh]

On 12/29/2023 at 4:48 PM, PaulS said:

It's a nice thought to plan on leaving a ‘good’ legacy

Back in 2008 ... I was in the Andes, Peru. My colleague stopped at a cutting, where there were fossilized dyno footprints wandering across some muddy ancient shore. The footprints were 120 My old. It got me wondering what footprints will I leave. Two thoughts crossed my mind.

• I am leaving footprints all the time, some obvious and some not so obvious. Most probably won't be seen after millions of years.
• Wanting to have visible footprints is a vanity (which is OK if we are into that kind of thing).

 

[PaulS]

24 minutes ago, romansh said:

Back in 2008 ... I was in the Andes, Peru. My colleague stopped at a cutting, where there were fossilized dyno footprints wandering across some muddy ancient shore. The footprints were 120 My old. It got me wondering what footprints will I leave. Two thoughts crossed my mind.

• I am leaving footprints all the time, some obvious and some not so obvious. Most probably won't be seen after millions of years.
• Wanting to have visible footprints is a vanity (which is OK if we are into that kind of thing).

 

Most probably won't be seen after a couple of generations unfortunately, Rom!  What's that saying about us ceasing to exist once our name passes across somebody's lips for the last time?

I don't think it's necessarily a vanity though to feel that one would prefer to leave the world having contributed for the better, for those who are yet to come - not out of vanity's sake, but out of love.

[romansh]

This quote might be debatable ... but I think it is worth some thought.

You yourself are participating in evil, or you are not alive. Whatever you do is evil to someone. This is one of the ironies of creation.
Power of Myth Joseph Campbell

[PaulS]

On 1/4/2024 at 5:12 AM, romansh said:

This quote might be debatable ... but I think it is worth some thought.

You yourself are participating in evil, or you are not alive. Whatever you do is evil to someone. This is one of the ironies of creation.
Power of Myth Joseph Campbell

I don't know if it is everything you do that is evil to another, but I'm sure a lot of what I do is considered evil by others. I'm guessing that could be opinions of others as to how I affect the environment, what my politics are, what my religious beliefs are, etc.  Whether it be somebody in my own country or culture, or somebody from a different country or culture, yeah, I'm sure often what I don't think of as evil will be considered evil by another in some way, shape or form. 

[romansh]

I know everything is a big word,  but I think it might help put Gen 2:19 and 3:22 into context a little bit. 

I am convinced Campbell himself did not actually believe in evil. I certainly don't. But Campbell is pointing to a way about thinking about this aspect of existence.

[tariki]

3 hours ago, romansh said:

 

I am convinced Campbell himself did not actually believe in evil. I certainly don't. But Campbell is pointing to a way about thinking about this aspect of existence.

Hi Rom, there is some good stuff in Joseph Campbell. 

Evil is more often seen as not having the same "existence" as the Good. The Good is seen to be God (by Christian theologians), who then gives "existence" to the opposites.

Isaiah 45:7 has:-

 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Which is the ancient Hebrew response to Zoroastrianism, which spoke of two eternal forces of good and evil. 

One of the early Church Fathers, Origen (a Universalist) spoke like this:-

I do not think that the reign of death is eternal as that of Life and Justice is, especially as I hear from the Apostle that the last enemy, death, must be destroyed [1 Cor 15:24]. For should one suppose that death is eternal as Life is, death will no longer be the contradictory of Life, but equal to it. For “eternal” is not the contradictory of “eternal,” but the same thing. Now, it is certain that death is the contradictory of Life; therefore, it is certain that, if Life is eternal, death cannot possibly be eternal. . . . Once the death of the soul, which is “the last enemy,” has been destroyed, the kingdom of death, together with death itself, will finally be wiped away.

(Origen of Alexandria, Commentary on Romans 5:7)

Life, the Good, the true, beauty......

The problem is that Christian Fundamentalists/Literalists in effect side with Zoroaster - insisting on an eternal and perpetual division between good and evil, lost and saved, "sheep" and "goats"!

Again, the Catholic Church, in refusing to speak or acknowledge a "Godhead" beyond God, in effect are in danger of creating the self-same eternal division. 

Meister Eckhart:- "I pray to God to rid me of God"

Anyway, perhaps I have waffled enough, and my coffee is getting cold. 

Hope all is well with you. I've just lost my best mate, a true friend, always there when I needed him, always going - as they say - the extra half mile. And just occasionally I was there for him, especially when pigeons or doves got stuck down his chimney - it was always a two man job to release them back to safety! We both enjoyed watching them fly off, disappearing, becoming a dot in the distance. A friend since schooldays, best man at my wedding - I still have the glass he nicked from the pub from which I had my last drink as a free man. As I say, my best mate, a true friend.

All the best, hope all is well with you. 

[PaulS]

On 1/10/2024 at 2:08 PM, romansh said:

I know everything is a big word,  but I think it might help put Gen 2:19 and 3:22 into context a little bit. 

I am convinced Campbell himself did not actually believe in evil. I certainly don't. But Campbell is pointing to a way about thinking about this aspect of existence.

I don't believe in evil either as a stand-alone 'thing'.  What we call evil is simply a judgement we make.  In our heads we determine whether we think something is evil - it doesn't make it so, it just aids in communication I guess.

[PaulS]

20 hours ago, tariki said:

Hi Rom, there is some good stuff in Joseph Campbell. 

Evil is more often seen as not having the same "existence" as the Good. The Good is seen to be God (by Christian theologians), who then gives "existence" to the opposites.

Isaiah 45:7 has:-

 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Which is the ancient Hebrew response to Zoroastrianism, which spoke of two eternal forces of good and evil. 

One of the early Church Fathers, Origen (a Universalist) spoke like this:-

I do not think that the reign of death is eternal as that of Life and Justice is, especially as I hear from the Apostle that the last enemy, death, must be destroyed [1 Cor 15:24]. For should one suppose that death is eternal as Life is, death will no longer be the contradictory of Life, but equal to it. For “eternal” is not the contradictory of “eternal,” but the same thing. Now, it is certain that death is the contradictory of Life; therefore, it is certain that, if Life is eternal, death cannot possibly be eternal. . . . Once the death of the soul, which is “the last enemy,” has been destroyed, the kingdom of death, together with death itself, will finally be wiped away.

(Origen of Alexandria, Commentary on Romans 5:7)

Life, the Good, the true, beauty......

The problem is that Christian Fundamentalists/Literalists in effect side with Zoroaster - insisting on an eternal and perpetual division between good and evil, lost and saved, "sheep" and "goats"!

Again, the Catholic Church, in refusing to speak or acknowledge a "Godhead" beyond God, in effect are in danger of creating the self-same eternal division. 

Meister Eckhart:- "I pray to God to rid me of God"

Anyway, perhaps I have waffled enough, and my coffee is getting cold. 

Hope all is well with you. I've just lost my best mate, a true friend, always there when I needed him, always going - as they say - the extra half mile. And just occasionally I was there for him, especially when pigeons or doves got stuck down his chimney - it was always a two man job to release them back to safety! We both enjoyed watching them fly off, disappearing, becoming a dot in the distance. A friend since schooldays, best man at my wedding - I still have the glass he nicked from the pub from which I had my last drink as a free man. As I say, my best mate, a true friend.

All the best, hope all is well with you. 

I'm truly sorry you've lost such a good mate, Derek.  I don't imagine it's easy, but I hope those memories of all the good times, offer you some comfort.  How lucky were you to have such a dear friend! 

[tariki]

33 minutes ago, PaulS said:

I'm truly sorry you've lost such a good mate, Derek.  I don't imagine it's easy, but I hope those memories of all the good times, offer you some comfort.  How lucky were you to have such a dear friend! 

Thanks

[romansh]

11 hours ago, tariki said:

Thanks

From my experience, I would be even more sad if the friend had never come into your life or anyone else's.

My "best man" passed away some ten years ago now. A combination of heart issues and excessive drinking. He was still living in England. He lived across the street from me, when I was three.

[romansh]

12 hours ago, PaulS said:

I don't believe in evil either as a stand-alone 'thing'.  What we call evil is simply a judgement we make.  In our heads we determine whether we think something is evil - it doesn't make it so, it just aids in communication I guess.

Evil (and the various associated dichotomies) is a useful concept to manipulate people and societies in general.

[PaulS]

4 hours ago, romansh said:

Evil (and the various associated dichotomies) is a useful concept to manipulate people and societies in general.

It certainly is, but I think it's also a term for us to share when trying to communicate behavior that we don't want in our community.  For example, as a community, we can see the harm that pedophilia causes our community, so we tend to communicate that activity as 'evil' to make the point that we don't want that activity in our community.

[romansh]

On 1/11/2024 at 4:24 PM, PaulS said:

... behavior that we don't want

This is exactly what I think it [evil etc] is. Of course, I extend my wants on to my community.

This leads to the question as to where our wants (will) come from. This leads of course to another topic from which I will refrain for the moment  

[PaulS]

On 1/12/2024 at 8:24 AM, PaulS said:

It certainly is, but I think it's also a term for us to share when trying to communicate behavior that we don't want in our community.  For example, as a community, we can see the harm that pedophilia causes our community, so we tend to communicate that activity as 'evil' to make the point that we don't want that activity in our community.

 

11 hours ago, romansh said:

This is exactly what I think it [evil etc] is. Of course, I extend my wants on to my community.

This leads to the question as to where our wants (will) come from. This leads of course to another topic from which I will refrain for the moment  

And those 'wants' change over time.  For instance, it used to be acceptable for a Jewish girl of 13 or 14 to be given into marriage by her father.  Such an activity would be considered 'evil' today.  Our understanding of 'evil' adapts and changes with our society and culture.

[romansh]

On 1/16/2024 at 9:02 PM, PaulS said:

 

And those 'wants' change over time.  For instance, it used to be acceptable for a Jewish girl of 13 or 14 to be given into marriage by her father.  Such an activity would be considered 'evil' today.  Our understanding of 'evil' adapts and changes with our society and culture.

Or is it our wants have been reshaped?

[PaulS]

On 1/19/2024 at 5:27 AM, romansh said:

Or is it our wants have been reshaped?

Definitely our wants get re-shaped, but I think you're asking if it's our wants that change and subsequently the culture changes as a reflection of those changed wants?  I tend to think it's both - maybe some people are ahead of the pack in changing their wants, but then that impacts culture, which then in turn changes and may make others reconsider their wants. I think.

[romansh]

20 hours ago, PaulS said:

Definitely our wants get re-shaped, but I think you're asking if it's our wants that change and subsequently the culture changes as a reflection of those changed wants?  I tend to think it's both - maybe some people are ahead of the pack in changing their wants, but then that impacts culture, which then in turn changes and may make others reconsider their wants. I think.

Using your 13 year old girl being given to marriage ... I suspect what changed was life slowly got less harsh and the age of being 'given' was raised as a result. I don't think people change their wants, at least not in the proactive sense.

[PaulS]

46 minutes ago, romansh said:

Using your 13 year old girl being given to marriage ... I suspect what changed was life slowly got less harsh and the age of being 'given' was raised as a result. I don't think people change their wants, at least not in the proactive sense.

It sounds to me like you're suggesting they would have liked to change their wants, but because life was harsh, it wasn't practical too.  So when they did get a chance to change their wants (life got less harsh) then they affected the change they may have previously preferred?

[romansh]

18 hours ago, PaulS said:

they would have liked to change their wants,

And here we see the beginnings of the infinite regress .. wanted to change wants.

My point ... as expressed in the free will thread all too often, our wants are shaped by the environment, past present (and perhaps expected future).

Using "age of consent" as proxy for marriage, it is a relatively new thing that children have to be older ... last two hundred years or so. Incidentally, Australia has a mish mash of consent ages.

 

[PaulS]

5 hours ago, romansh said:

And here we see the beginnings of the infinite regress .. wanted to change wants.

My point ... as expressed in the free will thread all too often, our wants are shaped by the environment, past present (and perhaps expected future).

Using "age of consent" as proxy for marriage, it is a relatively new thing that children have to be older ... last two hundred years or so. Incidentally, Australia has a mish mash of consent ages.

 

I'm not convinced that the environment is responsible for changing our wants. For instance, in Australia we currently have a fair bit of debate going on around our National Day of Celebration on 26 January - Australia Day.  This date was selected as it is the date the first fleets from England arrived on Australian Shores and raised the English flag as they claimed the land (irrespective of indigenous peoples already living on the continent). The date itself has changed throughout history.  Currently the debate is about changing the date again to recognize that the arrival of England's Fleet to Australia wasn't much good news for the indigenous residents. But my point is that people are affecting the debate, and others are reflecting on those arguments.  So more than likely what i see is people favouring a particular point of view that in turn will change the environment.  Once that environment is changed, yes, others will probably change their thinking over time, but still, the change was initiated by people's thinking changing in the first place, I think.

[romansh]

On 1/25/2024 at 4:13 PM, PaulS said:

I'm not convinced that the environment is responsible for changing our wants. For instance, in Australia we currently have a fair bit of debate going on around our National Day of Celebration on 26 January - Australia Day.  This date was selected as it is the date the first fleets from England arrived on Australian Shores and raised the English flag as they claimed the land (irrespective of indigenous peoples already living on the continent). The date itself has changed throughout history.  Currently the debate is about changing the date again to recognize that the arrival of England's Fleet to Australia wasn't much good news for the indigenous residents. But my point is that people are affecting the debate, and others are reflecting on those arguments.  So more than likely what i see is people favouring a particular point of view that in turn will change the environment.  Once that environment is changed, yes, others will probably change their thinking over time, but still, the change was initiated by people's thinking changing in the first place, I think.

Is this not all part of your environment?

 

[PaulS]

5 hours ago, romansh said:

Is this not all part of your environment?

 

In the broader sense it is, but I thought you were indicating 'environment' as separate or different to our wants.  I do agree that 'environment' can encompass all.

 

[romansh]

On 1/29/2024 at 3:41 PM, PaulS said:

In the broader sense it is, but I thought you were indicating 'environment' as separate or different to our wants.  I do agree that 'environment' can encompass al

From my perspective, separating "I" from the environment (and ultimately everything) is at best an illusion brought on by a lack of understanding and observation. This 'connectedness' is my religion in a semantic-literal way or perhaps my philosophy.