I forgot about this thread, fortunately frick betches get money made me randomly click it again to see someone disagree with me. Was gonna reply in great detail what I was implying and the fact that he/she compared it to pleasure, something done for self gratification and not a state of mind made me realise.. Oh right this is EM. So instead of giving you a reply i'll commend you on thinking and pat you on the shoulder for getting that far.. Good for you! I could still write something in more detail, but that would be the same as smacking my privates against a public bench. I'll just look like a cocky idiot and people wouldn't understand what I was doing anyway and call the police(mods) for sexual harrasment or racism. Cause people can find racism in mostly anything.
I don't think the goal in life is happiness. happiness is not that much better than pleasure. What makes people happy is different for different people.
For individuals, I think peace is a better goal to strive for. Too much of the bitterness and pain in the world is caused by people causing trouble over nothing. If everyone were to live kindly or at least neutrally, life would be better off in most places, and I think a lot more people would be happy, healthy, etc living meaningful lives.
In terms of ethics, I lean more toward the social contract theory than toward utilitarianism. Utilitarianism essentially says that doing good is simply that which makes the most people happy, and that doing bad is what makes the majority pained. The social contract theory, on the other hand, says that we should live in a system with rules that benefit/protect most of us in a way that most of us agree with.
Whether through work or politics, outside of the law or any social rules, I think a human's essential aim should be to make live better for people, when given the opportunity, but we should be compelled more not to do bad things more than to do good ones.
So I don't think fame, money, etc are really worth much in and of themselves, and I do think that finding moral laws or obligations that one can live by is a morally good task. I do think also that taking good care of our minds and bodies is morally good, and that being happy is a part of that.
Only goal in life is happiness, happiness is something only you can make yourself feel. Meaning of life = ??? Who knows. it seems pretty insignificant at times as death is inevitable and if death leads to nothing then there is no meaning to life. If it does lead to something its out of our human capacity to understand it anyway.
In terms of political philosophy, utopians are the ultimate goal of all societies. However, the degree of "utopianess" is indirectly proportional to conflict. Since humans are imperfect as limited by natural laws, we can never reach a perfect utopia. However, by decreasing conflict to but an increment above no conflict, we are able to achieve a perfect utopia. A perfect utopia is equivalent to a flawless anarchy. With significant conflict, we must reside among an indirect democracy run by governments at best. The government has no right to interfere on individual rights and responsibilities but rather to guide the communities in which individuals naturally bond to (i.e. for exchange in services).
Those who contribute most significantly to the community should be rewarded the most. I believe theorists who explore innovate ideas in the fields of mathematics, science, engineering, technology, economics, and philosophy should receive the most incentives whereas a businessman who contributes little to the community as a whole should not be rewarded as much.
There is so much more to talk about! Those are few of my metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, social, and political viewpoints on reality and societies. I haven't even scratched the surface on my environmental worldview, animal rights, individual rights and responsibilities (e.g. reasons not to commit suicide), happiness, linguistics, or the use of pure mathematics to translate pieces of absolute truth into human experience like a book!
Objective truth is infinite and is inversely proportional to ignorance. This means that the only way to achieve complete lack of ignorance replaced by absolute knowledge and wisdom is to take the limit as knowledge and wisdom approach infinite quantity.
Being exists to dominate among others. Objects separate from other objects in a closed system in order to grow independently, succeed, and dominate the system. However, I have come across a paradox in which entropy causes time to flow, and objects exist to approach equilibrium, which is opposite to what I have claimed...
I'm also an absurdist. In terms of religion, I am still a bit undecided but probably gear toward deism at this stage in my life. I believe that some ultimate being created the axioms of the universe in which it drives to move but is left untouched. This natural being cannot be depicted because it is a concept of the absolute in which human logic cannot be applied.
The human mind restricts our ability to form true conclusions. (Also because absolute truth can only be achieved infinite knowledge and lack of any but an increment of ignorance.) Our human logic is a mock of nature attempting to become self-aware but is limited by the environment and laws of which govern the universe. As such, we are incapable of thinking about this "absolute natural being" as well as concepts outside of our universe and sense of reality.
deletedover 8 years
my lfie philosopophy is that i want to die
deletedover 8 years
SCENARIO: Naruto and Sasuke end up as a literal gay couple
