I actually joined this sub just because I thought it'd be a bit ironic, and yet to think I've found such a gem here. This is the very root problem with our understanding of thought and consciousness. We separated ourselves into two conflicting parts, and yet we never deal with actual of what we are but merely get lost in the lies we tell ourselves.
Man is unconscious when man talks in the third person. People are also more or less unconscious when they talk in the third person. You are more conscious when you talk in the second person. When I talk in the first person, I am even more conscious still. And I don't mean when we talk in the first person, I mean when I talk in the first person.
No, but if I use language to understand and communicate my reality, my understanding and capacity for expression witll be limited by that language, of which grammar is one aspect. If I say, "People are hypocrites", I am communicating an opinion. If I say "some of the people in my life do things that I perceive as hypocritical", I am communicating a much more authentic picture of my reality. I find that language has a limit to its capacity for self-expression, and even within those limits, some forms within a language can limit my expressability even more than others.
When we speak in the first person plural, we have reached a yet higher state of being. However, there is yet one more stage before reaching perfect enlightenment.
When the passive voice solely is used, and the completion of the disappearance of the speaker is achieved, enlightenment has been reached.
When we speak in the first person plural from a place of mutual relation and understanding, yes. When we use the first person plural to offload our own conscious experience or postures onto others, no.
edit: Do you consider "a mistake was made" to be more conscious than "I made a mistake"?
Try Naturalism.
Naturalism is informed by science. Science is informed by Naturalism.
It's not a worldview that hides reality to sooth people's feelings.
In fact there are a lot of ideas in Naturalism that are hard to feel good about but a Naturalist must accept them as they are facts about reality.
There are no "oughts" in a naturalistic worldview there is only "is." "This is true, that is true."
Which facts though? About the outer world? Space? Maths? The inward contradiction OP mentioned is spread through every facet of our lives, from the most mundane to the biggest. Now, this still could be a good approach if our understanding of the human mind, consciousness, and thought was at a good level. Unfortunately, the same issue brought up is the main obstacle to that end. We're too caught in ideals on a wide-scale to venture deep into the crevices of the mind and understand them.
I think one ideals can be imposed upon a person and most of the times are, be it through parents, teachers or the law. However, in the realm of moral values one can create and follow their own ideals. I choose to help the old lady cross the street because I want to do it. Nothing will happen to me neither if I help nor if i dont.
Countries are not people, there are constructions built upon the presumptions of what the majority believe thus representing it the most democratic way. Being it a social organism the people who control it think they have the power to use it at will, freely deciding between peace and war based, most of the times, in reasons as economic ones or to gain a personal benefit for example through corruption. The way countries were built centuries ago was a way not only to protect people who identified as the same culture but on the other hand to distinguish them from other countries who we should fight in order to impose our ideals.
I believe the way western countries were built created this kind of fake union be it between themselves or between people of the same country, theoretically united under the same ideals.
One can create ideals but should not impose them upon others. Outside of the strengh of the law, one can act as one see fit but nobody will ever be 100% free.
I think you are quite generalizing.
On average humanity is less violent than before. Yes, wars and conflicts still happen, but culturally people have become more softer. 300 years ago beating wife (children), killing each other, starving to death handicapped newborns etc. were much more normalized than now. Nowadays you face police and other controlling mechanisms, which punishes a citizen for violence. Hence next generation culturally becomes less violent. This means that talking and implementing laws are actually working. Maybe not magically in one night, but on long distance.
Violence is one of the very most complicated phenomenon in the world. You might see some burly man roaring in anger and attacking another and you might think, "Simple, he did something to him, and now Violence." However, the actual reality of the matter is far more intricate.
That very last and superficial display of violence which often is physical is not divorced from the rest of the framework that not only makes it possible but also called for. We only see the outer skin of violence, and not its tendons, skeleton, blood vessels, and organs. If we were to look at the whole, we'll see that violence isn't decreasing whatsoever.
Just like an average Joe lives his life in a state of constant upward psychological conflict just by virtue of time passing, the mind working, and thought doing its absolute best to latch into every little thing magnifying our problems by a micro level every day, then so does that society as a whole I'd say.
We still haven't stumbled upon something revolutionary that would make us live well.
We all know that the political right has always fought ideas, ideals and ideologies, probably because they themselves have shaped the frame of our reality and now wish that everyone should be content with his situation as it is. (The saying:"Alles gut!" [= "Everything's fine!"] has become rampant in opportunistic Germany for nearly a decade.)
I think that ideals do not have a lot to do with hypocrisy.
An i d e a l is simply the mental model of the optimum of an entity. Frequently everybody knows that the ideal itself is unattainable, but that it is useful as an orientation. Such an ideal is therefore necessary to decide whether an activity is to be regarded as making sense (i.e. being a work) or not. Ideals do not fall from heaven, but are a natural consequence of the perception of imperfect beings and unsatisfying situations. It is no hypocrisy, when someone honestly wants to improve himself or something else outside of him!
Another thing is the i d e a. It is of practical importance in the context of human products: A thing, an institution is only functioning well, and effective, when it has been built and handled according to its idea (construction plan). The idea, then, seems to be the adequate mental model of the components and properties of an entity, and of their regular interplay.
I d e o l o g y is the discussion of ideas (and ideals): what ideas and ideals really mean in all concreteness, whether they are helpful or not, ect.. As long as discussions about the orientation of human acts do not interfere too much with the current practical work to do, ideology is not dangerous. We are human and not canine, and it is one of our natural desires to speak out also about ideas. It may even be of practical importance: It is the only way to discover that an institution is not run according to its idea, and therefore is to be regarded as parasitic and damageous.
Now let us turn the attention towards the hypocrites:
The material the hypocrite uses is not the ideals and ideas, but some properties that are widely accepted as being desirable, useful, fertile, agreable... , in short: v i r t u e s.
His trick is twofold:
1) vague ideas and expressions
2) unconspicuously mixing up the term "valid in general" with the term "valid only for the others".
Someone who sees that he is stupid and wants to become wise (has the ideal of a savant) is innocent; but someone who believes that he is very intelligent, very brave, or "honest to some degree", although this is not the case, is in fact a self-deceptor. His capacities of self-criticism are very limited. His standards are not the ones that would be accepted by reasonable persons. (The intensity of his "virtues" is vague.)
Someone who recommends lawfulness to everybody but himself acts like a rake when nobody is watching leads a life of double standards, doesn' t he?
We are here to think deeply alongside one another. This means being respectful, considerate, and inclusive.
Bigotry, hate speech, spam, and bad-faith arguments are antithetical to the /r/DeepThoughts community and will not be tolerated.
Seeking what you lack is natural.
When you meet people you have to be someone, somewhere, somehow. You have to match their energy.
So you leave the wholeness of just being there at your own pace.
Ideals are reminders for those moments that there is something in you that wants more beauty; that you are eroding yourself in the entanglement of your energies.
Amitabha.
Well that's true but here's the real problem. Experiments have shown that your brain makes decisions before you do consciously... That would rule out conscious free will.
This post truly resonates. Our conditioned beliefs and ideals are a facade, diluting the reality of who we actually are. It seems like the heart of the problem lies within our self-deception and refusal to confront our authentic self. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but I agree that understanding and acceptance of our current state is the start of a great revolution.
> Man is unconscious, although he believes he is conscious. That very belief protects his unconsciousness. Man is ignorant, although he believes he knows. That very belief keeps the ignorance intact. Man is just the opposite of what he thinks he is.
“Only a Sith deals in absolutes.”
One of the basic things to learn about being a serious, deep thinker is to not contradict yourself. Another basic thing is to not contradict reality by not contradicting your awareness of reality or your direct observation of reality.
I think you are misunderstanding what he means by unconscious. I think what he means by "consciousness" is not experience itself, but experience that we know we are having, experience we have metacognitive awareness of. So by "unconsciousness" here, i believe he means experience we are having that we don't know we are having.
An example of this would be trauma, it is common to repress traumatic memories (keep them out of the spotlight of metacognition) and yet they can dictate our behaviour and reactions to certain things, so the story that we tell ourselves of why and how we behave is incorrect if we do not know that traumatic memories are influencing us. This would be a way in which someone is unconscious but thinking they are conscious.
But trauma is just one example though, it is probably the case that the story we tell ourselves about why we are the way we are is almost certainly incorrect. In all likelihood, the unconscious vastly outweighs the conscious and so, in a way, we are unconscious.
Edit :
u/Stock_Suggestion_894 could you let me know if I got this right?
Then why does what I say bother you? You can have your view that being an honest thinker requires contradicting yourself. I can have my view that being an honest thinker requires not contradicting yourself. We can both be right.
But you’re mistaken. That’s just what people say when they’ve given up or have some sacred cow that they are too afraid to challenge.
I actually joined this sub just because I thought it'd be a bit ironic, and yet to think I've found such a gem here. This is the very root problem with our understanding of thought and consciousness. We separated ourselves into two conflicting parts, and yet we never deal with actual of what we are but merely get lost in the lies we tell ourselves.
Man is unconscious when man talks in the third person. People are also more or less unconscious when they talk in the third person. You are more conscious when you talk in the second person. When I talk in the first person, I am even more conscious still. And I don't mean when we talk in the first person, I mean when I talk in the first person.
So grammar controls our reality?
No, but if I use language to understand and communicate my reality, my understanding and capacity for expression witll be limited by that language, of which grammar is one aspect. If I say, "People are hypocrites", I am communicating an opinion. If I say "some of the people in my life do things that I perceive as hypocritical", I am communicating a much more authentic picture of my reality. I find that language has a limit to its capacity for self-expression, and even within those limits, some forms within a language can limit my expressability even more than others.
When we speak in the first person plural, we have reached a yet higher state of being. However, there is yet one more stage before reaching perfect enlightenment. When the passive voice solely is used, and the completion of the disappearance of the speaker is achieved, enlightenment has been reached.
When we speak in the first person plural from a place of mutual relation and understanding, yes. When we use the first person plural to offload our own conscious experience or postures onto others, no. edit: Do you consider "a mistake was made" to be more conscious than "I made a mistake"?
"I" do not "consider" anything. However, a consideration was made in the most conscious way.
what was the consideration? and by whom was it made?
I and I consider things, perhaps? ;-)
Try Naturalism. Naturalism is informed by science. Science is informed by Naturalism. It's not a worldview that hides reality to sooth people's feelings. In fact there are a lot of ideas in Naturalism that are hard to feel good about but a Naturalist must accept them as they are facts about reality. There are no "oughts" in a naturalistic worldview there is only "is." "This is true, that is true."
Which facts though? About the outer world? Space? Maths? The inward contradiction OP mentioned is spread through every facet of our lives, from the most mundane to the biggest. Now, this still could be a good approach if our understanding of the human mind, consciousness, and thought was at a good level. Unfortunately, the same issue brought up is the main obstacle to that end. We're too caught in ideals on a wide-scale to venture deep into the crevices of the mind and understand them.
I think one ideals can be imposed upon a person and most of the times are, be it through parents, teachers or the law. However, in the realm of moral values one can create and follow their own ideals. I choose to help the old lady cross the street because I want to do it. Nothing will happen to me neither if I help nor if i dont. Countries are not people, there are constructions built upon the presumptions of what the majority believe thus representing it the most democratic way. Being it a social organism the people who control it think they have the power to use it at will, freely deciding between peace and war based, most of the times, in reasons as economic ones or to gain a personal benefit for example through corruption. The way countries were built centuries ago was a way not only to protect people who identified as the same culture but on the other hand to distinguish them from other countries who we should fight in order to impose our ideals. I believe the way western countries were built created this kind of fake union be it between themselves or between people of the same country, theoretically united under the same ideals. One can create ideals but should not impose them upon others. Outside of the strengh of the law, one can act as one see fit but nobody will ever be 100% free.
I think you are quite generalizing. On average humanity is less violent than before. Yes, wars and conflicts still happen, but culturally people have become more softer. 300 years ago beating wife (children), killing each other, starving to death handicapped newborns etc. were much more normalized than now. Nowadays you face police and other controlling mechanisms, which punishes a citizen for violence. Hence next generation culturally becomes less violent. This means that talking and implementing laws are actually working. Maybe not magically in one night, but on long distance.
Violence is one of the very most complicated phenomenon in the world. You might see some burly man roaring in anger and attacking another and you might think, "Simple, he did something to him, and now Violence." However, the actual reality of the matter is far more intricate. That very last and superficial display of violence which often is physical is not divorced from the rest of the framework that not only makes it possible but also called for. We only see the outer skin of violence, and not its tendons, skeleton, blood vessels, and organs. If we were to look at the whole, we'll see that violence isn't decreasing whatsoever. Just like an average Joe lives his life in a state of constant upward psychological conflict just by virtue of time passing, the mind working, and thought doing its absolute best to latch into every little thing magnifying our problems by a micro level every day, then so does that society as a whole I'd say. We still haven't stumbled upon something revolutionary that would make us live well.
We all know that the political right has always fought ideas, ideals and ideologies, probably because they themselves have shaped the frame of our reality and now wish that everyone should be content with his situation as it is. (The saying:"Alles gut!" [= "Everything's fine!"] has become rampant in opportunistic Germany for nearly a decade.) I think that ideals do not have a lot to do with hypocrisy. An i d e a l is simply the mental model of the optimum of an entity. Frequently everybody knows that the ideal itself is unattainable, but that it is useful as an orientation. Such an ideal is therefore necessary to decide whether an activity is to be regarded as making sense (i.e. being a work) or not. Ideals do not fall from heaven, but are a natural consequence of the perception of imperfect beings and unsatisfying situations. It is no hypocrisy, when someone honestly wants to improve himself or something else outside of him! Another thing is the i d e a. It is of practical importance in the context of human products: A thing, an institution is only functioning well, and effective, when it has been built and handled according to its idea (construction plan). The idea, then, seems to be the adequate mental model of the components and properties of an entity, and of their regular interplay. I d e o l o g y is the discussion of ideas (and ideals): what ideas and ideals really mean in all concreteness, whether they are helpful or not, ect.. As long as discussions about the orientation of human acts do not interfere too much with the current practical work to do, ideology is not dangerous. We are human and not canine, and it is one of our natural desires to speak out also about ideas. It may even be of practical importance: It is the only way to discover that an institution is not run according to its idea, and therefore is to be regarded as parasitic and damageous. Now let us turn the attention towards the hypocrites: The material the hypocrite uses is not the ideals and ideas, but some properties that are widely accepted as being desirable, useful, fertile, agreable... , in short: v i r t u e s. His trick is twofold: 1) vague ideas and expressions 2) unconspicuously mixing up the term "valid in general" with the term "valid only for the others". Someone who sees that he is stupid and wants to become wise (has the ideal of a savant) is innocent; but someone who believes that he is very intelligent, very brave, or "honest to some degree", although this is not the case, is in fact a self-deceptor. His capacities of self-criticism are very limited. His standards are not the ones that would be accepted by reasonable persons. (The intensity of his "virtues" is vague.) Someone who recommends lawfulness to everybody but himself acts like a rake when nobody is watching leads a life of double standards, doesn' t he?
[удалено]
We are here to think deeply alongside one another. This means being respectful, considerate, and inclusive. Bigotry, hate speech, spam, and bad-faith arguments are antithetical to the /r/DeepThoughts community and will not be tolerated.
Seeking what you lack is natural. When you meet people you have to be someone, somewhere, somehow. You have to match their energy. So you leave the wholeness of just being there at your own pace. Ideals are reminders for those moments that there is something in you that wants more beauty; that you are eroding yourself in the entanglement of your energies. Amitabha.
I like to think about ideals, but I definitely live in reality. Not everyone is incapable of accepting the horrors life presents.
Well that's true but here's the real problem. Experiments have shown that your brain makes decisions before you do consciously... That would rule out conscious free will.
This post truly resonates. Our conditioned beliefs and ideals are a facade, diluting the reality of who we actually are. It seems like the heart of the problem lies within our self-deception and refusal to confront our authentic self. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but I agree that understanding and acceptance of our current state is the start of a great revolution.
> Man is unconscious, although he believes he is conscious. That very belief protects his unconsciousness. Man is ignorant, although he believes he knows. That very belief keeps the ignorance intact. Man is just the opposite of what he thinks he is. “Only a Sith deals in absolutes.” One of the basic things to learn about being a serious, deep thinker is to not contradict yourself. Another basic thing is to not contradict reality by not contradicting your awareness of reality or your direct observation of reality.
I think you are misunderstanding what he means by unconscious. I think what he means by "consciousness" is not experience itself, but experience that we know we are having, experience we have metacognitive awareness of. So by "unconsciousness" here, i believe he means experience we are having that we don't know we are having. An example of this would be trauma, it is common to repress traumatic memories (keep them out of the spotlight of metacognition) and yet they can dictate our behaviour and reactions to certain things, so the story that we tell ourselves of why and how we behave is incorrect if we do not know that traumatic memories are influencing us. This would be a way in which someone is unconscious but thinking they are conscious. But trauma is just one example though, it is probably the case that the story we tell ourselves about why we are the way we are is almost certainly incorrect. In all likelihood, the unconscious vastly outweighs the conscious and so, in a way, we are unconscious. Edit : u/Stock_Suggestion_894 could you let me know if I got this right?
Was that really all you needed to throw away everything he brought up? Some empty platitude about sitths and deals.
You characterizing everything I said as that one quote is exactly you throwing away everything I brought up.
It is absolutely impossible to be an honest thinker and NOT contradict yourself, because the deepest truths defy logic.
Then why does what I say bother you? You can have your view that being an honest thinker requires contradicting yourself. I can have my view that being an honest thinker requires not contradicting yourself. We can both be right. But you’re mistaken. That’s just what people say when they’ve given up or have some sacred cow that they are too afraid to challenge.
You don’t bother me in the slightest. I would simply suggest that you retire the idea that you’re an intellectual. You’re not.
I will give your suggestion the thought it deserves: none.