The Philosophy And Life Q&a Thread

[JT!]

If you dug a hole through the center of the earth, out the other side and jumped in, would you stay suspended at the center because of gravity?

Ignoring the high temperatures and stuff like that, you could be floating in the middle as the earths gravity would be pulling you in all ways.

If the effects of gravity weren't in play and you could just jump straight through, would you come out head first at the other side?

Edit: Assuming you went in headfirst...

If the effects of gravity weren't in play we wouldn't be attached to the earths surface we wouldn't be able to jump down a hole at all.

If you meant the effects of air resistance, then you would come out head first around 45 mins later.

Edited January 6, 2010 by JT!

[1a2bcio8]

Could you really see and believe this hypothetical infinite beauty (something that is a divine product of virtue), in something you know isn't perfect?

Maybe you are right in the sense that in order to see and be part of this this perfection, you must see every tiny thing that is not perfect as an opportunity for divine change.

FB Chat is a great example - that's not a thing of perfection and beauty in any sense, but maybe there is beauty in the belief that it could be?

Does perfection really go deeper? might want a new word for it if it does What is perfection?. when something couldnt get any better for you personally? if so its all relative to the person so you couldn't not realise that everything is perfect.

If you did drop your compulsive thinking and imagining surley then it would not be affected by emotion or 'perceptive filter' so it could be viewed as perfect, or anything else for that matter. I dont think perception is a filter, makes it sound like a layer covering the real goodness beneath or something, i dont think theres that much to people for that, it would show... why would the process of evolution turn out so you have this big unused awesome ability to do that?

Good point and I think perhaps I should elaborate on what I mean by the word perfect. When I say perfection, what I mostly mean is a realisation of completeness regarding what happens in existence - all the types of events that we can experience. If we take the time to consider it, everything that happens is supposed to happen given its nature. A planet circles the sun because that's its nature and water runs down a river for the same reasons. Can existence do something wrong? I can't imagine how it could? In the first instance then, everything is perfect, complete or how it should be. However, following this first instance of things being as they should, humans via thinking make statements and have ideas of either how they would like things to be or how things should be in order to achieve an end of some sort which can be labelled as perfect or complete according to how well it matches up to our ideal or target - such as facebook chat imagined as being operationa; 100% of the time meaning it was perfect or near perfect. Both of these types of statement are quite valid in the sense of ideas. These ideas though have come to define and limit how we feel about our experience. Especially in the sense that we take a 'should' from the situation of trying to achieve something (an end of some sort) and place it into the situation of how we would like things to be - this is a type of confusion. When this happens, we end up saying things like, "Oh, I should have won that competition" or "I should have lots of money" or "I should not have been hit by that car". But this is not so because everything happens how it should in accord with its nature. The trouble is we take the prior and the just mentioned confused statements too literally and as a result we miss the perfection of existence in the first place. Our (convenient) ideas of existence take the place of existence as it is denying its initial perfection or completeness - this makes up our perecptual filter. We only experience "perfection" if a situation accords with our expectations. This is not to say that we should not have ideals and be able to rate stuff that happens in terms of how near or far from perfect it is regarding what we want to achieve but only that we should realise them as a convenience for judging the quality of something in terms of ideas, not reality as it is in the first place. Part of realising this however is the dropping of all ideas whereby we can look at our experience as it is - non-conceptual or idea-less awareness.

In terms of human relativity of what makes perfect (and probably what makes us happy), there are relative and non-relative aspects. There are some things which are true of all human beings and something that are more subjective. Like I mentioned before, we can create our own individual ideas of what makes a situation perfect that are relative but we can also realise this truth about the nature of existence that is the same for all human beings. I actually happen to think that a realisation of this nature would brings happiness for probably all human beings. There are certain things which, like physiology (eating, breathing, etc.) bring certain healthy results in a psychological sense for all human beings. An example of psychological requirements for good mental health beyond the realisation of perfection that I'm talking about it is qualities like love, understanding, etc. which naturally make you feel better. Love is obvious and understanding allows us to avoid annoyance, hatred, etc. which don't feel good. Realiation of the inherent completness and correctness of existence means we don't end up with confused expectations that contradict its nature.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Ben Rowlands

[ilikeriding]

Good point and I think perhaps I should elaborate on what I mean by the word perfect. When I say perfection, what I mostly mean is a realisation of completeness regarding what happens in existence - all the types of events that we can experience. If we take the time to consider it, everything that happens is supposed to happen given its nature. A planet circles the sun because that's its nature and water runs down a river for the same reasons. Can existence do something wrong? I can't imagine how it could? In the first instance then, everything is perfect, complete or how it should be. However, following this first instance of things being as they should, humans via thinking make statements and have ideas of either how they would like things to be or how things should be in order to achieve an end of some sort which can be labelled as perfect or complete according to how well it matches up to our ideal or target - such as facebook chat imagined as being operationa; 100% of the time meaning it was perfect or near perfect. Both of these types of statement are quite valid in the sense of ideas. These ideas though have come to define and limit how we feel about our experience. Especially in the sense that we take a 'should' from the situation of trying to achieve something (an end of some sort) and place it into the situation of how we would like things to be - this is a type of confusion. When this happens, we end up saying things like, "Oh, I should have won that competition" or "I should have lots of money" or "I should not have been hit by that car". But this is not so because everything happens how it should in accord with its nature. The trouble is we take the prior and the just mentioned confused statements too literally and as a result we miss the perfection of existence in the first place. Our (convenient) ideas of existence take the place of existence as it is denying its initial perfection or completeness - this makes up our perecptual filter. We only experience "perfection" if a situation accords with our expectations. This is not to say that we should not have ideals and be able to rate stuff that happens in terms of how near or far from perfect it is regarding what we want to achieve but only that we should realise them as a convenience for judging the quality of something in terms of ideas, not reality as it is in the first place. Part of realising this however is the dropping of all ideas whereby we can look at our experience as it is - non-conceptual or idea-less awareness.

In terms of human relativity of what makes perfect (and probably what makes us happy), there are relative and non-relative aspects. There are some things which are true of all human beings and something that are more subjective. Like I mentioned before, we can create our own individual ideas of what makes a situation perfect that are relative but we can also realise this truth about the nature of existence that is the same for all human beings. I actually happen to think that a realisation of this nature would brings happiness for probably all human beings. There are certain things which, like physiology (eating, breathing, etc.) bring certain healthy results in a psychological sense for all human beings. An example of psychological requirements for good mental health beyond the realisation of perfection that I'm talking about it is qualities like love, understanding, etc. which naturally make you feel better. Love is obvious and understanding allows us to avoid annoyance, hatred, etc. which don't feel good. Realiation of the inherent completness and correctness of existence means we don't end up with confused expectations that contradict its nature.

Man I wish I could condense your replies

Ok I totally get what you mean by perfection in the sense first described, but I'm questioning whether its a big step in making the comparison between perfection of existence and the way in which you give the example of human perfection. I was thinking that gap was free will but then I realised I'm a determinist for the most part lol. Applying that morally as a belief is basically a do whatever the f**k you want though so it cannot be entirely accepted into our society, so it isnt universal for us which is totally contradictory anyway, but it would be nice for philosophy to have some benefit to people.

I see where your coming from saying realisation of the perfection of existence would bring universal happiness. BUT that alone isn't gonna stop you feeling pain ect... and without that wouldnt everyone be happy?

to summarize the discussion: Things are intrinsically perfect because they happen.

Edited January 6, 2010 by ilikeriding

[Phatmike]

These ideas though have come to define and limit how we feel about our experience. Especially in the sense that we take a 'should' from the situation of trying to achieve something (an end of some sort) and place it into the situation of how we would like things to be - this is a type of confusion. When this happens, we end up saying things like, "Oh, I should have won that competition" or "I should have lots of money" or "I should not have been hit by that car". But this is not so because everything happens how it should in accord with its nature. The trouble is we take the prior and the just mentioned confused statements too literally and as a result we miss the perfection of existence in the first place.

Yes there must be a complete awareness of the perfection of the now, but sadly the world we live in doesn't make this possible to everyone.

..we can create our own individual ideas of what makes a situation perfect that are relative but we can also realise this truth about the nature of existence that is the same for all human beings. I actually happen to think that a realisation of this nature would brings happiness for probably all human beings. There are certain things which, like physiology (eating, breathing, etc.) bring certain healthy results in a psychological sense for all human beings. An example of psychological requirements for good mental health beyond the realisation of perfection that I'm talking about it is qualities like love, understanding, etc. which naturally make you feel better.

Right, the reason this awareness isn't available widespread is not just down to lack of learning, understanding, and knowledge but also to the lack of basic human needs. The real reason, I feel, that the best moments of our lives were so great was because all of our fundamental needs as a human (I'm talking Maslow triangle here), were either met and exceeded, or your senses dulled so much that they just plain don't matter!

[1a2bcio8]

Man I wish I could condense your replies

Ok I totally get what you mean by perfection in the sense first described, but I'm questioning whether its a big step in making the comparison between perfection of existence and the way in which you give the example of human perfection. I was thinking that gap was free will but then I realised I'm a determinist for the most part lol. Applying that morally as a belief is basically a do whatever the f**k you want though so it cannot be entirely accepted into our society, so it isnt universal for us which is totally contradictory anyway, but it would be nice for philosophy to have some benefit to people.

I see where your coming from saying realisation of the perfection of existence would bring universal happiness. BUT that alone isn't gonna stop you feeling pain ect... and without that wouldnt everyone be happy?

to summarize the discussion: Things are intrinsically perfect because they happen.

Sorry my posts aren't more succinct. I'm just making efforts to ensure my point is understood as I'm often criticised for being unclear

I used to share the attitude that this realisation meant morals didn't mean anything. However viewing existence in the "first instance" doesn't have to negate the validity of morality. It certainly means that morality is a human construct but what's important is that moral behaviour can be considered as arising from the psychological needs of humans in the same way that the act of breathing and eating are the needs of human physiology. Morals make sense for humans because they can act as guiding principles for human health, on the individual and social level. We wouldn't deny that it makes sense to eat and breath but we all seem a bit confused over psychological needs = morals when doing their proper job should lead to a greater human health.

It's certainly a choice to be moral but isn't it that way regardless of how we consider the universe or a potential god? I guess it's less of a choice if we fear the consequence of our actions because of a big scary judging universe or God but even people that do believe in those, especially the latter, still act in amoral fashions.

Regarding pain there are many ways we can adjust our response to that type of experience. By realising pain in its most fundamental nature, in a purely non-conceptual way as 'pure experience' (so to speak), aside from the typical human response we have of reacting to pain with pain and that pain with more pain, etc. Although I can't do it with a great deal of pain, in meditation I've experienced what we normally call (muscular/head) pain in a purely observational and not unpleasant fashion - it was simply an event such as watching a leaf float by - it didn't mean suffering or being unhappy. This ties in to the broader act of seeing the universe more as it is in opposition to through our ideas, habits and instincts that otherwise normally define the way we experience life.

Right, the reason this awareness isn't available widespread is not just down to lack of learning, understanding, and knowledge but also to the lack of basic human needs. The real reason, I feel, that the best moments of our lives were so great was because all of our fundamental needs as a human (I'm talking Maslow triangle here), were either met and exceeded, or your senses dulled so much that they just plain don't matter!

Yeah I think the hierarchy of needs is a good model for considering human development. I certainly think it's accurate to consider the fulfilment of more basic needs a prerequisite for later more refined (human as opposed to animal) needs. When I'm hungry I can't really appreciate playing with a zippo lighter although I suspect certain insights about the nature of reality may make one able to maintain higher states of being despite certain lower deficits. Certainly not when trying to initially gain insights though. Maslow's model is unfortunately vague however and seems perhaps overly relative in that sense. I think it's good to fulfill subjective needs but I definitely think there are higher needs relating to all human beings. What's more fulfilling than to love, percieve 'objectively', understand, etc.? I think that's true of all people.

[Phatmike]

BUT that alone isn't gonna stop you feeling pain ect... and without that wouldnt everyone be happy?

Regarding pain there are many ways we can adjust our response to that type of experience. By realising pain in its most fundamental nature, in a purely non-conceptual way as 'pure experience' (so to speak), aside from the typical human response we have of reacting to pain with pain and that pain with more pain, etc. Although I can't do it with a great deal of pain, in meditation I've experienced what we normally call (muscular/head) pain in a purely observational and not unpleasant fashion - it was simply an event such as watching a leaf float by - it didn't mean suffering or being unhappy. This ties in to the broader act of seeing the universe more as it is in opposition to through our ideas, habits and instincts that otherwise normally define the way we experience life.

Yeah, I'm glad you made the distinction between pain and suffering there. Pain, as Ben said is simply an experience; whether to raise attention to danger eg putting your hand on a stove, or pain you feel from a breakup or the grind of the 9-5 regime! Either way it's raising awareness to a situation, and hopefully to do something about it. Unfortunately due to the therapy culture these days, most treatment for pain is simply to numb it and reduce awareness, rather than to promote awareness and encourage action! (ie moving your hand off the stove :wink2:) I'd consider suffering to be when that pain denies you of your human needs, for an extended period of time. Suffering is defined as 'the state or an instance of enduring pain', so I'd suggest that this belief is fairly consistent.

The hierarchy of needs is a good model for considering human development. I certainly think it's accurate to consider the fulfilment of more basic needs a prerequisite for later more refined (human as opposed to animal) needs. When I'm hungry I can't really appreciate playing with a zippo lighter although I suspect certain insights about the nature of reality may make one able to maintain higher states of being despite certain lower deficits. Certainly not when trying to initially gain insights though.

Definitely. If you're always hungry or always lonely or always acting immorally, then one may never catch a glimpse of what it feels like to not be hungry/lonely/whatever, and as such may not strive to have those human needs met constantly (which I think should be the goal of the world).

Hence, since thinking about this, I now always go for a slash as soon as I feel necessary, rather than waiting!

[ilikeriding]

Sorry my posts aren't more succinct. I'm just making efforts to ensure my point is understood as I'm often criticised for being unclear

I used to share the attitude that this realisation meant morals didn't mean anything. However viewing existence in the "first instance" doesn't have to negate the validity of morality. It certainly means that morality is a human construct but what's important is that moral behaviour can be considered as arising from the psychological needs of humans in the same way that the act of breathing and eating are the needs of human physiology. Morals make sense for humans because they can act as guiding principles for human health, on the individual and social level. We wouldn't deny that it makes sense to eat and breath but we all seem a bit confused over psychological needs = morals when doing their proper job should lead to a greater human health.

It's certainly a choice to be moral but isn't it that way regardless of how we consider the universe or a potential god? I guess it's less of a choice if we fear the consequence of our actions because of a big scary judging universe or God but even people that do believe in those, especially the latter, still act in amoral fashions.

Regarding pain there are many ways we can adjust our response to that type of experience. By realising pain in its most fundamental nature, in a purely non-conceptual way as 'pure experience' (so to speak), aside from the typical human response we have of reacting to pain with pain and that pain with more pain, etc. Although I can't do it with a great deal of pain, in meditation I've experienced what we normally call (muscular/head) pain in a purely observational and not unpleasant fashion - it was simply an event such as watching a leaf float by - it didn't mean suffering or being unhappy. This ties in to the broader act of seeing the universe more as it is in opposition to through our ideas, habits and instincts that otherwise normally define the way we experience life.

;

It is a choice to be moral, however many people know they don't have a full enough understanding or whatever it maybe to form considerations of the universe. What I'm saying is if those people that fit this group, if they tend to be amoral, this psychological tendency when coupled with logical statements derived from 'everything is perfect cos is happens' is a 'do what you like'

the thinking being: Everything I do is right(perfect). I want That womans handbag, because everything I do is right, the action of stealing that handbag is right.

[1a2bcio8]

Sure, it's a fair point. I can also see people acting how they want to in so much as they subscribe to the idea of everything is perfect. Their thinking and acting would be based on a misunderstanding of what is trying to be indicated however.

[1a2bcio8]

Is that type of discussion best discussed when you're free from the grips of a controlling consciousness? I.e; drink, drugs, laughing gas, mushrooms or a cake?

Hehe, for most of then probably

[PaRtZ]

Vote Ben Rowlands most eloquent member of trials forum

[ilikeriding]

Is that type of discussion best discussed when you're free from the grips of a controlling consciousness? I.e; drink, drugs, laughing gas, mushrooms or a cake?

But Without knowledge of a controlling consciousness could you see past it to a free consciousness?, you couldn't see past what is there because whatever is past what is not there would be directly in front of you.

man you'd be a genius if you could discuss this stuff when pissed

Edited January 7, 2010 by ilikeriding

[1a2bcio8]

I think that we typically are under the control of our egos, which essentially leads to the desire of this or that end; "I want a chocolate cake", "I want to be the best trials rider in the world", "I don't want to think of the world in a way that makes me less materialistic because I like materials" or even, "I can utilize the idea of the world as perfect as an excuse to rob old ladies and for it to be acceptable". If we shut down or simply see past this ego process, that we are normally slave to, I think we begin to see the world more clearly. There is a lot to gain for the ego by distorting our view of things. I've not had the pleasure of viewing the world without ego in any substantial sense but I have stepped out of ego and experienced a gap between 'myself' and it. Ego is a bit crazy when you watch it from the sidelines although I think it can be appropriately used in terms of psychological health - it's just we overuse it and are slave to what it wants. But yeh, consciousness is not ego and it's ego that tends to break down through drug usage. That's probably what's meant when we talk of leaving the grasp of consciousness?

Edited January 7, 2010 by Ben Rowlands

[benthedog]

I'm really sorry for jumping in here but ehh... what is ego???

[casualjoe]

Its a bit like a mojo but without the pulling power.

Looking at the animal kingdom it seems like animals do what ever they feel like, which results in some weird and wonderful activities when viewed from a moral point of view, like a monkey eating its own turd for instance. However, a lot of fighting among males takes place for the prize of a female, do they really want to fight or do the males just want that pussy soooo bad that cocks clash. It seems to me, in a similar way to a lone caterpillar who knows exactly how to turn himself into a butterfly that a lot of the behaviour of living things is built in already and just 'feels' right when the time or situation comes.

Can this be related to human kind or are we special? I think different species/things have varying levels of this built in'ness throughout nature and we are at one end of this theoretical scale, with the other end containing partical physics type interractions and basic cellular stuff in the middle. This is always guess work for me so any enlightenment is welcome.

Ed - I suppose we are 'special' because we are aware of our being, but I think we still have some built in'ness or else we couldnt get boners

Edited January 7, 2010 by casualjoe

[ilikeriding]

I think that we typically are under the control of our egos, which essentially leads to the desire of this or that end; "I want a chocolate cake", "I want to be the best trials rider in the world", "I don't want to think of the world in a way that makes me less materialistic because I like materials" or even, "I can utilize the idea of the world as perfect as an excuse to rob old ladies and for it to be acceptable". If we shut down or simply see past this ego process, that we are normally slave to, I think we begin to see the world more clearly. There is a lot to gain for the ego by distorting our view of things. I've not had the pleasure of viewing the world without ego in any substantial sense but I have stepped out of ego and experienced a gap between 'myself' and it. Ego is a bit crazy when you watch it from the sidelines although I think it can be appropriately used in terms of psychological health - it's just we overuse it and are slave to what it wants. But yeh, consciousness is not ego and it's ego that tends to break down through drug usage. That's probably what's meant when we talk of leaving the grasp of consciousness?

Thats cool, I've always thought ego's to be us and what we have learn't though, as psychological studies indicate that they mostly consist ofschemas ect. knowledge, and knowledge of how to and when to apply that knowledge. So a change in the chemistry of your brain through the use of psychedelics, Doesn't appear to be a way of looking at life without your ego, moreso a jumble of unnatural experience produced and changing according to the substance you use. In gaining knowledge about the universe ect. it seems a more valid approach in thinking about these things without the use of drugs. Perhaps you need to adopt the perfect schemas to achieve the end product of that goal?.

Edited January 8, 2010 by ilikeriding

[Spider Lad]

To side-step all the philosophical bubblegum chewing and head straight for the meat I'd suggest two very useful books on different subject matter. Each giving very stisfying accounts to different sets of questions we all ask.

The Selfish Gene - Richard Dawkins

Consciousness Explained - Daniel C Dennett

[Phatmike]

Is that type of discussion best discussed when you're free from the grips of a controlling consciousness? I.e; drink, drugs, laughing gas, mushrooms or a cake?

WHAT IS A MAN IF HE DOESN'T TRY TO MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE?

Alan, you have a beautiful mind!

You're right in that 'this type of discussion' is best discussed when you're free from the grips of a controlling consciousness (though not a controlling conscience), be it under the effects of drugs or not. The use of cannabis and nitrous has, and will probably continue to help open my eyes up a lot, after which I always try to use what I've learned and understood to apply to 'real' life.

I think my philosophical rollercoaster over the last 18 months so far has led me to this;

"Seeing the true beauty and joy in things often comes from a previous conscious understanding of them. When this knowledge is then drawn upon subconsciously, the appreciation of them can then increase exponentially.

When understanding applies to any aspect of our lives, we are able to see beauty in a limitless amount of things. (Think the "Little Pleasures" thread)

The opposite of this, pessimism, is where instead of seeing the good in things, we focus on the bad, creating a worsening illusion of the world we live in. But by seeing the negatives (and understanding them and their motives), we can draw upon our collective knowledge, power and tools to fix problems, without even having to apply conscious thought. The more this is done, and the more people in the world collaborate, the more problems can be solved leading to less bad, more good and thus, more beauty in our world."

As for most eloquent member, I think it's definitely fair to award Ben that one! However eloquence isn't always easy to understand, so I'll see your avatar and raise you one :wink2:

[Martin Grainger]

is fat mike like.... god now?

...that'd be a good world.

[Simpson]

How about.... the only thing that is constant, is change

No, not in maths or science is this true, gravity in the world as we know it is constant etc.

If God is so great, why does he take away friends of ours?

Because without death there can't be new life and without death you wouldnt be living you would be existing.

I really like the little pleasures thread. It's a great illustration of something we all know about, those little pleasures, of such an odd indescribable joy we get from as mentioned, a sweet gear change, nailing a catch unexpectedly, or that unexpected line you pull out when riding every now and again. It's like a little moment of perfection, or a tiny slice of enlightenment.

What if you lived your life in such a way that every action you took, every step you made, you did your up most best to achieve those moments of perfection?

Then you would only notice the imperfection when you failed, and wouldn't ever marvel in sucess

WHAT IS A MAN IF HE DOESN'T TRY TO MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE?

Fairly average! lol

Ok just to change my question to be less nerdy, realised its a Life Q&A thread, why do I lack emotional attatchment towards anyone? Getting sick of having to be fake arround people, its not like me at all. Like thinking to much about attachment and shit is just making me akward, like i.e. got a really tight click at uni between 4 of us, and I just can't feel totally natural around them always... and like, saying goodbye to people, trying to act sad like they are... I dunno.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Simpson

[Phatmike]

is fat mike like.... god now?

...that'd be a good world.

Haha! If only

No, not in maths or science is this true, gravity in the world as we know it is constant etc.

Gonna have to halt you there I'm afraid Simps! Gravity (as I assume you're defining it in the sense of gravitational field strength on earth at sea level) isn't a constant. It's dependent on height above sea level, the sea level itself (tides), proximity of mountains or large objects, and even celestial movements - the list goes on. I'd definitely concur that change is the only constant, as change just is.

Because without death there can't be new life and without death you wouldnt be living you would be existing.

I do agree with the first sentence to an extent, death of our bodies is one part of life - a brick wall in the road if you will, but one that hopefully we can jump over a few times before we find we can't knock it down! However we can definitely go beyond existing long before we hit that wall. :wink2:

Then you would only notice the imperfection when you failed, and wouldn't ever marvel in sucess

Then try your hardest to suceed (nail the gear change), be grateful when you get it almost right, marvel when you get it perfect.

Ok just to change my question to be less nerdy, realised its a Life Q&A thread, why do I lack emotional attatchment towards anyone? Getting sick of having to be fake arround people, its not like me at all. Like thinking to much about attachment and shit is just making me akward, like i.e. got a really tight click at uni between 4 of us, and I just can't feel totally natural around them always... and like, saying goodbye to people, trying to act sad like they are... I dunno.

People all talk about different things, perhaps you might feel a bit awkward when trying to talk about physics to Steven Hawking, in the same way that some people might feel a bit awkward when I'm blabbing on about camera aperture and shutter speed when someone just wants to point and click. I think you need to find that connection with people, whatever level it is on. It doesn't have to be awkward small talk, and perhaps there are some people that you might never find that connection with. Does that mean you should block them out of your lives? Maybe, or maybe you just need to wait until either of you can find that connection. The key is to find out what level you're on first, and that may be harder than it sounds.

[bikeperson45]

Talking about this today, do you think there is such thing as nothing? I was thinking that fornothing to exist, there must be something meaning that there is nothing.

[Daniel Gray]

I have thought about god, life and why we are here until I feel like crying. I think the best thing for me is to find a mantra and not think to much. about it aha.

[dann2707]

I guess this would fit in here.

A while (about 4/5 months) ago I nearly crashed my Focus, I was on a 60mph lane, doing 60mph going round a slight bend admittedly I was going too fast for the car, a car was oncoming that came out of nowhere and I absolutely shat myself but held it fine, almost clipping a curb, a little to the left and I would have lost control probably smashing into the oncoming car that was going about the same speed as me.

I just had this massive feeling hit me about what would have actually have happened if I would have hit it.

If I hit it and survived, what would I have known at the time? Would I have just blanked out and woken up in a hospital unable to move for the rest of my life in a vegetable state. Or would I have felt every single impact, every roll, every bit of pain?

If I hit it and died, how would I possibly have known that I'd died? (Sounds such a stupid question when I type it out, but think about it), but like, what would have happened to my thoughts etc,, would that be it, just an empty space, gone. Would you get to see the misery and pain your Family and friends felt when they heard about such tragedy, somehow?

I just don't understand what would happen, and it makes me so sad, just realising that that would be it, gone forever not being able to say goodbye to my Mum and Dad or anything all because of a little driving mistake.

I actually had to pull over the car straight after, sit back for 5 mins and just think about how f**king close I was to dying/being in such a tragedy, selfish.

Actually got a bit upset writing this out, guess it got to me that bad huh.

Edit: Who repped me and why? lol

Edited December 4, 2010 by dann2707

[1a2bcio8]

Talking about this today, do you think there is such thing as nothing? I was thinking that fornothing to exist, there must be something meaning that there is nothing.

We have to understand what we mean by "nothing" and in particular the manner in which it's used that essentially makes up its meaning. When we talk of "nothing being there" we mean to say that we can imagine the situation being otherwise in some sense but it is not that way. For instance, if I hear a sketchy noise in another room of my house I might imagine that somebody is breaking in or this is some sort of threat. When I check on the room and do not see anyone or anything that is of threat then I will probably think to myself "there is nothing here". By saying that I am simply indicating that there could be something there (burglar/threat of some kind) but it is not. "Nothing" in this sense is an abstraction. I am not saying there is some existing nothing. It doesn't refer to any concrete or metaphysical reality but rather it just says something about what is possible or we can imagine being there and what actually is there. In other words "nothing" just means absent from experience but doesn't say anything about what is absent existing in some other sense.

Another way to think about this is when I say, "that car over there" this refers to some object that exists whereas when I say, "there is no car there (no-thing)" I'm not refering to or suggesting some other thing that is not the car; I am not refering to some existing non-existence (?!) which is an absolute paradox. It does not mean that the car that could be there is in a state of nothingness. To think that it is a kind of nothingness is to create a metaphysical (beyond the physical world) reality. But this is just what you are imagining, not what is.

"Nothingness" only exists in our heads basically.

I've repeated myself considerably there but it's really difficult to get what I want to say into terms that I'm happy with. The subject of nothing is, by definition, very abstract. I hope that makes sense though? Please tell me if it doesn't.

What is interesting about what you're getting at though is the way we take terms from certain contexts and try to apply them in the wrong contexts and this can result in phantom existents. This is where philosophy can go very wrong. Language has a multitude of ways for confusing us about the nature of the world around us.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Ben Rowlands

[bikeperson45]

I had planned to write more but couldn't, I almost need to draw it or something.

I suppose we'll never know if nothing exists, the only we'll experience it is before conception and after death where we're part of the nothingness? But then if we are part of it surely that must make it something, unless it actually is nothing so there is nothing to be a part of...

When I think of nothing I think of black space before anything like God or something. However then I can't even imagine it not having any sort of boundary, that seems impossible to me and if it had a boundary would there be anything on the other side?