In the movie "Hero", the Emperor of Qin is seen as a tyrant who is crushing tribes and villages across China. He personally sees it as a necessity, required to unite the country so there is no more conflict. During this, there are individuals who were born to villages that were destroyed or harmed while the Emperor was in the process of doing this and they eventually grew up to become rebels/assassins with the intention of killing the big guy for x amount of reasons (Let's face the truth here, these guys would have spent an eternity finding other things wrong with this guy on the foundation of their own suffering).
Only one of those assassins comes to enlightenment at first that if he himself, as one of a few suffering, sacrifices his vengeance for the better of an entire country, then he is pursuing the ultimate ideal of peace. This later spreads to a few others. If they flat out killed the guy, the country would have gone into disarray and regions would have started warring with each other all over again. By the time he's the clear victor, it makes sense to pursue peace and stop the killing.
If there's true injustice happening where people are sufferring...
>>275
I think Hero was a thinly veiled propaganda piece for the Chinese government, and that the idea its moral justification was based on is a fanciful lie. More violence is perpetrated in the name of peaceful unification than in the name of independence, and to suggest that there is some moral superiority in violent oppression to prevent violent liberation is absurd.
But I agree that protesting the Olympics was a dick move.
If one was to die and be reincarnated as something, is the bond between the object which is being reincarnated and the soul which is entering the object connected both spiritually and physically or just spiritually?
No. 12537 - Anonymous - January 15th, 2010 - 7:41 AM
If reincarnation does exist, it must be physical only.
A physical being such as an animal doesn't have the ability to comprehend spirituality, at least that's the best assumption science can give us for now.
No. 12579 - Anonymous - March 3rd, 2010 - 11:14 AM
Who can say that animals can't comprehend spirituality?
Anybody can say it, but does that make it fact?
Anonymous - Thursday, January 21st, 2010 - 4:11 AM
ok here goes. iv never really wanted to post this anywhere as i get the feeling it would come across as ZOMG IM EPICZ!!1!!1. but anyway. for as long as i can remember iv always thought i was different. cliche but, special. and not even in a good way really. just that there is something i should or will do. the feeling of some potential or fate that should come to be. felt like this for as long as i can remember. currently 22. iv got no idea, maybe im just a narcissist?
When I was about ten, I was at a restaurant having breakfast with my godmother. Upon finishing the meal we were heading out the door when I saw a group of elderly people toddling toward the door. I held the door open for them, as my parents had taught me to respect my elders. One man was stooped and balding, heavyset and leaning on a cane. After he got through the door (being the last of the elderly people) he turned to me, huffing and puffing, and said "You...are going to be a great man." Then he turned and walked away.
So no, OP, you're not the only one. I don't know if I should be taking action or even if the old man meant anything by what he said, but it's stuck with me. Now I'm 19 and filled with the desire to be something great, to honor the old man I met nearly a decade ago, but nothing's happened.
The thing I've come to terms with is that this feeling of fate that you describe needs to be completely ignored. Do not give up your locus of control. Things don't happen to you, they happen because of you.
>>239
He was referring to your conscientious behavior being unusual and implying that you were kind-hearted. He spoke nothing of your potential to do great things or change the world. If that enters your fate, it will be at your own hands.
Is there any reason to believe in a higher power? Is there any reason to not believe in a higher power?
What does it take for something to be a "higher power"? If a being that exists outside of time created the universe, would that be a sort of God? What if the being cannot make bushes burn or make the ocean split in half? Could it still be "God"?
General religion thread; post any questions pertaining to religion you have. This thread is not for any specific religion, but you may talk about specific religions if you desire. The point of this thread is to discuss what religion is, as well as what "God" is, be it an old man on a throne in the clouds, a pantheon of men and women, a formless energy that permeates everything, etc.
No. 12516 - Catholic guy - January 5th, 2010 - 3:36 PM
>>190
>>192
I agree completely. "Only God reveals God", and by what means? Many. Many different people in history have found Him through different avenues. I personally find God most clearly when I serve others, and in the beauty of nature. At the same time I appreciate and am enriched by the many gifts of the Church, some of which are listed here. >>189
I believe in humanity. I believe that fundamentally we are good (in whatever sense of the word it may be) and our collective human condition is one of the most beautiful and fascinating entities of existence.
Is it true that human beings have no needs? Is living a want and not a need? Because if living is a want that would mean that life is unnecessary. We wouldn't technically need anything. Food and sleep would just be a need in order to live, but if living is a want then those things aren't needed. I bring this to your attention because I did not think of this (my friend did) and I would like to have your imput.
Some questions can't be answered because we just don't have enough information. I'd say at this point in human existent, the point is to find enough information to answer those questions or to find enough information to know that some questions can't be answered. It might be that we are never satisfied with what we find, which will always give us a reason to continue living.
Humans have needs. Anything that exists has needs. Want is a subset of desire and sometimes people desire things because they fulfill a need. You can't claim that life is unnecessary simply because a living being wants to live, that's flawed logic. Life being necessary is an unanswerable question, and a part of people will want to find the answer to that.
It's all in how you define what a "want" is and what a "need" is. If your definition of a need excludes living, then living is a want, and if your definition of a need includes living, then of course it is a need.
There's not really a right or wrong answer to this question, just ways to approach it. A better question would be, "Is life (as a whole) necessary?" or "Is there a reason for us humans to exist?"
When you feel at home with the shocking and breathtaking realization of the universe as a play of energy or consciousness which you are able to behold through your heightened senses and subtle mind, you enter into a state of indescribably sweet serenity. Your serenity is so deep that it seems to pervade not only your bones and body but the air around you. The energy in your room, or car, or wherever you may go, has a beatific quality. Others may love to stand near you and many dogs and cats may wish to abide with you in the new atmosphere which radiates from your new level of consciousness.
No. 12522 - Anonymous - January 7th, 2010 - 7:54 AM
The difficulty is based entirely on the strength of the ego and its predilection for self-centeredness. The higher consciousness will not overwhelm the ego. It awaits the time that the ego is willing to experience something beyond itself, willing to welcome a new state of love and freedom to occur, and willing to surrender control to the higher power, the greater wisdom, and the true love within.
Many seekers do not understand and do not have what it takes. They try the expansion a few times, find themselves unwilling or unable to cooperate with the outward thrust of the self. They return to the fork in the road where higher consciousness began and they willingly take the other road: the road of self-confinement.
No. 12523 - Anonymous - January 7th, 2010 - 7:55 AM
On the other hand, those who persist and understand that the problem is the thickness of their ego — the intensity of their ego-centricity — find the experience so wonderful they yearn that it not end. And each day that goes by thereafter they yearn to experience the expansion again and again and again. They feel, both in the expansion and in the afterglow of it, that they are surrounded by blessedness. They behold everything as tinged with a sweet ecstasy. The serenity of the second level has been totally replaced by an ecstatic and dynamic play of consciousness. It is thrilling to be alive in every tissue! Every moment, every second, has a delight in it for the one who meets with this adventure and dares to be changed in so fundamental a way.
Is there truly any such thing as selflessness? Do we not do everything we do to make our existence "better" in some way?
Even if we concede in some situation, it is expected that that concession will earn us something in the future (a favor). Perhaps it is just me (likely), but I don't believe that anyone is ever selfless. It is completely agaisnt our nature.
No. 12517 - Catholic guy - January 5th, 2010 - 3:38 PM
>>191
>Potentially, not all good choices are pleasant or easy to make, and compromise/failure can lead to inner turmoil.
I agree. At the same time, I re-affirm that those difficult choices lead sooner or later to profound peace, growth, graces.
But yes, it is no bed of roses in terms of conventional pleasures, doing the right thing.
>>194
Hm, say our candidate for selflessness was ignorant of this future peace. Does that bring his actions closer or further from our working definition of selfless?
my psychology lessons start tomorrow.
What is the difference between psychology and philosophy? At least they start and end with the same letter..
No. 12434 - Anonymous - December 2nd, 2009 - 12:42 AM
Psychology: "Why does that man want to have sex with women that look and act like his mother?""
Philosophy: "Is it ever okay to kill another human being?"
There's a world of difference between the two, but there is also some common ground. However, psychology can move into a laboratory setting, using scientific experiments to learn. With philosophy, that never really happens. If you want to prove something, you have to use logic. (And not the "common sense" thing that people typically mean when they use the word "logic"; logic in philosophy means a sound argument using the rules of logic. It's complex, so you might wanna Google it.)
No. 12458 - Anonymous - December 6th, 2009 - 11:45 AM
It basically boils down to the great How/Why divide.
Psychology explores HOW the brain works in a scientific and structured manner. It seeks no reason or purpose behind its discoveries, simply an objective explanation of cause and effect. For example, this person was raped, therefore this person has an unusual fear of sex.
Philosophy seeks to discover WHY things are the way they are. Why do we exist? Why do we feel? Why do we need to create? Big questions that cannot be proved scientifically because there is no science that can approach them. Philosophy, then, is not objective, but subjective. It can never be proven, only discussed.
You know, people take life way too seriously. It's really not anything special, when you think about it. It's just another anomaly in the universe, and will rectify itself just as another anomaly in the universe would. I honestly don't understand why people hold it in such high regard. I mean, yeah, life is nice. Life is pleasurable. I like life myself, since I like nice and pleasurable things. But just because I'm alive doesn't mean I'm somehow special. Living things do what they're supposed to do, just like how rocks roll the way they're supposed to, just how wind blows the way it's supposed to, just how water flows the way it's supposed to. We're not unique in any way, shape or form, really.
Wow, so much for /sanc/ being a place where people are supposed to be open-minded.
I mean, I thought this was a place where people were allowed to express their opinions on, you know, lizard people ruling the world, magic existing, Bigfoot abducting people, without having to worry about being judged or people going
