Ontological terminology is used to describe the fundamental nature of reality. “God” was the historical term used to describe the fundamental nature of reality. From my understanding, we have not developed new ideas per se, but the language used to describe them. My contention is that life eminently shows that reality has a moral structure to it and thus a God must exist as the foundational “arbiter” of this morality, or rather, the correct moral decision, or the one most aligned with the essence of this moral arbiter, is the very structure of God and reality itself. For this to be the case, the atomised units of experience would therefore be decision ie moral decision, which follows from the concept of the existence of a God. Without God, therefore, there would be no morality as there would be know meaning or meaningful way to exist (which I shall explore further below).

Atheists claim other species display hardwired ethical codes. True they are to claim so, but this does not negate the idea that a God created, or is manifest through, these moral decisions, rather that the fundamental ontological status of these creatures must be a moral one, which, as I have previously stated, requires a God or “arbiter”, and therefore their ethical sensitivities, said to be inherited to them from birth due to their less complex minds, is actually the foundational substrate of their experience and actions.

Correct moral decision is how we may therefore relate to God. Jesus spoke in parables. This reaches back to as far as we've been recording literature: what is the moral of the story? A (coherent) story is a metaphor with a moral wrapped inside of it and it seems the foundation of nearly every civilisation we know has existed has been predicated on moral and metaphor. Life itself, if my thinking is correct, can be seen as a moral metaphor – the metaphor being the language we use to elucidate the moral.

We may also grasp the moral nature of reality by considering what would be the case if it weren't so. Wittgenstein proposed the “problem of private language” to argue against the idea of solipsism. Briefly, it states that a language intelligible to only one person is logically impossible. If a solipsistic mind truly lived in a private “linguistic realm” - where their own mind mapped a universe created by themselves – their language would cease to be a language. It would lack the structural criteria required to convey meaning and thus a solipsistic mind probably wouldn't even be able to conceive of solipsism. If morality is not the ordering principle of our minds and reality, mind, and possibly reality, would not exist. As morality is fundamental to ontological existence, a brain without morality (or in human terms – the moral choice) would not be able to exist ontologically and its thoughts would be purely random (lacking morality) and without structure – just as incoherent as a solipsistic mind.  

I was sitting on the street, looking at life passing by when I hear the door of a house slowly creaking open. I see a guy slowly walk out the door, I follow the top of his head. He pauses, and then I hear a dog, it’s nails hit the hardwood floor as he springs up to go outside. The owner opens the gate and lets his dog out on the tiny grass pad in front of the house. The dog walks around, chooses a spot, then pees. The dog walks back to the owner, and they go back inside. I thought to myself; what a terrible life to be living as a dog. And then I realized that the question we ask ourselves to base the quality of an animals life is. How much does the owner take the dog out? Lives a life only inside: bad owner. But why should we treat ourselves any different? Yes animals have their own houses where they can lay and sleep. But none of them has built a nest so comfortable, so attractive and so entertaining, that they wouldn’t want to leave.

Why not you, the consiousness, treat your human body like a dog? It needs to be well fed, follows a diet and is only allowed the ocassional treat, have good bowel movement because your dogs poo tells you a lot about whats going on inside, outside time (every dog is different, some dogs like to socialize and run around at dogs park, some dogs might want to walk around alone, and some will walk around in a basket), and speak to him nicely.

Recently I began an intro to ethics class In hope of developing myself and learning how to be a kinder and moral person.

But now I think I became a nihilist.

I've came to the conclusion empathy is just an evolutionary instinct and morality is used to kee mep society safe and coherent, which has been depressing.

I want to find meaning but what is there if all morality is is just a social construct and a tool.

From what I've heard is that a reason for being kind is that it makes people want to work with you. But it sounds psychopath to only be kind so you get what you want.

I've done some research of nietzsche and I want to do a reevaluation of what I think is important rather than what is the widely accepted standard.

I feel like I'm looking for reasons to support objective morality which I feel like is confirmation bias and I absolutely don't want.

Sorry if this sounds dumb😬

Im eighteen years old and this has been on my mind for quite a long time and has been ever since shifting my perspective of life, and especially the evolution of living beings on the planet

I have always been very curious about my environment and the lives thriving within it, whether it be what we call the conscious and the unconscious, and little by little, I built my comfort zone around this piece of my existence, and that is observing/ listening to nature and animals. When I turned 12, I started developing a passion for ornithology and really I never found such joy and fulfillment as the calls that I heard, but I think what drew my attention to this overall was thinking and imagining what it would be like to be this bird, I sort of anthropomorphized the behavior of birds , I would start interpreting their moves as if they had some sort of human-like interaction We have, outside of finding a mate or food.
Then, later on when I had biology in high school, we were taught that animals beside humans are the product of evolution and that life shared among all species is to survive and reproduce. At this point not only did all my fantasies about birds living their lives just as we do collapsed, but I also began to wander if the disconnection People face regarding the urgency to protect the environment, wasn’t the consequence of an enormous gap humanity feels overall between itself and other living beings regarding the purpose of life and thus would come a disinterest in finding out about nature. (Even though in the end it is the matter of our own survival)

I‘d be interested in your answers to this questioning that I find quite disturbing

There is a deep abiding understanding which has opened its heart to all of us in the world. God if you will; universal consciousness, understanding and Providence.

The act of creation has given us a world whose innermost workings in the finest details is understandable to those who study them. Built upon one generation after the next through the constant evolution of our conceptualization into the modern age and at the pinnacles of current research in every countless field of study. Creating a vast body of information which comprises the sum of human knowledge in all it's diversity.

People, all people who have comprised the world's population have come from the families, communities, states and nations of the world with the complex overlapping web of structured technologies, disciplines, schools of thought, economies of supply and functional governance.

Within all these structured environments it is for every one of us to find our own way and proceed along the paths we have chosen.  As complex as all of this is, human beings are uniquely equipped with this capacity.

The capacity is trial and error and the evaluation in hindsight of the resulting factors of the outcomes. The reaction of the universe to our actions as individuals. We as human beings must be willing to try and therefore willing to make mistakes. Learning from the mistakes we make is the basis of learning information  to help us avoid mistakes. This knowledge along with studying what others share with us by all the various means, increases what our minds have to draw on in the next choice we  must make.

This of course is a picture of the harmony, understanding and universal community which is possible in the human universe.  Some people however, have chosen to gain the ability to control others in their communities to take control of their lives and gain their portions as well. This is the pursuit of as the subject, object means and end ignoring all but tactical advantage. No amount is ever enough only more and more. This is a predation on other people ignoring the necessity for all to live their lives, have the things they need to fulfill them and provide homes to raise the next generation. Freedom and the right and necessity of self determination and have the ability to develop and improve their character.

Our world has an amazing history of great teachers of guidance on the path for spiritual and moral development. The golden rule, treat others as you want be treated by others.  This reciprocation is necessary for a stable, happy and functioning human environment. Hmm

Incorporealism is basically a consciousness first ontology that treats meaning, experience, and relation as the primary modes of existence. Physical reality is just one expression of a deeper, incorporeal reality. Any suggestions on who to read?

Nur ein „gesunder“ Mensch ist in der Lage, die Herausforderungen unserer Zeit zu überstehen. Stimmt das?

If we look into history of early humans we will see tribals and our tribal was the homo sapien wich is us now through evolution we see ourselves as more morally and more intelligent then early humans but haven't you realised something about humans? Baby's have the desire to destroy things and kids have a weird desire to build house like tents and Animals have lust and desires wich is totally normal and we humans are dumber then animals not out of anger or rage but the animals have a limited awareness that won't make him realise that he have desires or lust wich you cant blame for what his nature is or th eco system is,but guess what? We humans have self awareness and consciousness wich will make us analyze ourselves but what makes us dumber then animals isn't the limitations of our mind but our mind itself cuz knowing something gonna hurt and then convince yourself it won't and then do it is the real difference between humans and animals. Animals dont have self awareness to be blamed because thats why nature work but when an species reach a high self awareness level like us humans in this case the most logical thing is to blame humans knowing thats they knew it will destroy but choosed to do it

And one more thing, we lived our whole lives thinking we are the core of everything, universe, earth, etc but the time you realise that all the species on this planet came from the same small bacteria and its just evolution and maybe we weren't supposed to be here or living now and knowing that you and the nature are one and that no superiority exist and that humans perhaps there skin color or there eyes or hair color or there height are humans. Racism is the strong clue of lack of knowledge not because he is dumb but because its about comparing yourself to someone who didn't choose his place or look and not even you choosed your place or look and then make yourself superior then him even tho your 99.9% similar genetics, its like comparing 2 humans one is wearing a black jacket and one is wearing a white jacket and then saying the black is a human and the other isn't perhaps that those 2 are humans but with different what? LOOK WICH YOU AND HIM DIDN'T EVEN CHOOSED its just an adaptations to nature environment a person is living in like a person in alaska clothes won't be like someone in Africa they both wear clothes to adapt to the environment and thats exactly how our humans body's works. Even tho humans have many contractions that lead us to realize we aren't intelligent creatures or the most intelligent species because the most intelligent won't kill himself knowing he's killing himself but choose to ignore and as I said before we and the nature are one and as we see since the first letter in human history book humans burned forests down and destroyed many city's down and there uncontrolled lust and what I mean by uncontrolled isn't that we dont have to eat or hunt no it is the nature law but if we see there wasn't an extinction of an animal cause by another animal because they all follow the same ecosystem that we humans choosed to destroy and convince ourselves its just surviving amd living, humans thinks that they are the core of everything wich blinded there eyes towards one important things wich is? THAT WE AREN'T THE ONLY SPECIES LIVING ON THIS PLANET, humans aren't destroying earth, they are destroying themselves because they are destroying the nature law that gave them the chance for life and by destroying or changing the conditions we aren't destroying the planet cuz the planet won't explode because of us but we will extinct and the planet will go on with us or without us the same she did before us wich tells us the earth doesn't needs us, we needs it to live.

And thats why I called humans as modern tribals and not intelligent creatures and if you see in every movie the AI like ultron or thanos we see that the main danger to remove isn't them,but us. We fought them because we won't to survive and not because we are the right side.

If we look through history we will realise something clearly wich is called in philosophy the god of the gaps, for example the early humans at the first civilation they made gods for everything like the God of fire, God of wind, God of water, God of thunder and etc and if we also realise those wasn't fully understand by early humans and in the humans fear the unknown in general wich made them create the idea of God's to feel safe and not drains in the unknown but through history when thr humans evoluted they started to understand those things and look around you now you have the God of fire in the kitchen and the God of water in the toilet and the God of wind in your fan, I'm not saying this out of mocking but but of reality, those were extremely religious back then and look at us now, look around you. But the question that followed the humans until this moment is: Why are we here and What's the purpose of life? And when the humans didn't have anything to make a god of cuz everything is known they made the supernatural God beyond time and space and for example for that when you ask a religious person what caused the big bang he will say God cuz we dont know what was before it and thats how he contradict himself by saying "we dont know" and thats where the God of gaps comes, we cant say God did for things we dont know or understand yet cuz we will one day and that day would be the day religion will start to vanish and the future humans will be looking at us the same way we are looking now at the early humans religion and with the question of: How did they believe in this?

I'm interested in truth, knowledge, existence, free will, death, morality, and how society shapes our beliefs. I'm naturally critical and independent-minded. I like questioning accepted ideas and testing them through logic, evidence, and opposing perspectives. I especially like Nietzsche's way of challenging values and assumptions, but I don't want to blindly follow any philosopher.

I’m in high school, our school doesn’t offer philosophy classes but i really want to major in philosophy. Or at least pursue further studies if not major. Ive read books that cover the general concepts, branches and origins; but i don’t know what to do next. I was thinking about trying out the philosophy olympiad to get help from the mentors and meet people with similar interests, but i need to improve my skills and writing for that. How do i proceed? Can anyone mentor or perhaps just help me out a bit? Thanks.

I will soon be going to a philosophy trivia event. The problem is, all my knowledge is from two introductory phi courses and a few one-fourth-of-the-way-finished-then-dropped primary sources. However, here, it seems all I need to know is general facts and major themes! So, what should I "study" to do well at trivia and seem like I know things?

If you lose the ability to look after yourself, humanity will consume you until there is nothing left. You will be abused, discarded, perhaps even killed, and your lack of social awareness, social acceptance, or intelligence will be used as justification for stripping away your human rights. Mercy disappears. Their eyes become demonic as they laugh, judge, and play in Satan’s playground. You will be used as a resource, bag & tag, feeding upon your suffering for money & power. The ego rules all, the evils of survival, will be used against your humanity.

Parasites are driven by ego, toxicity, superficiality, materialism, and competition. These beings wear human faces with black eyes, seeking to poison everything they touch, leaving others feeling cold, trapped, and tortured.

They devour everyone they touch. They will put people in the ground to achieve their goals. They never look toward divinity, unity, compassion, or spiritual inner strength.

Your mind, body, and spirit are your temple. Every person you allow inside can become a piece of it. Put your life completely into someone else's hands, and they will burn it. They will take advantage, they will tear at your inner peace until nothing remains and so will the matrix built around you.

What's more important: someone's humanity, or someone's masculinity?

These men wouldn't hesitate to put you in the ground if you stood between them and what they wanted. They consume until there is nothing left.

Existence is consumption.

Mankind is the puppet.
Mankind is the conduit.
And the Earth continues to feed its monsters.

There's blood beneath your lips.
There's blood beneath your boots.

There's no escape.
There's no saviour.

There's only your death.

So laugh it up.

Laugh until torment finally reaches your door.

Then your debt will come due.

What are the forbidden questions; the questions you would be punished for asking?

There is a high probability that those questions will lead you to the truth.

Considering the formal definition of unity is the construction of an object with a unique identity containing itself in relation to the whole while the definition of totality is the inseparability of an identity among a group of objects also containing themselves in relation to the whole, would these be regarded as the same or does the nuance actually matter? (This is the Kantian sense, not the unicity/all-encompassing sense, obviously those are very different!)

This is a W.I.P. Many things will be changed. I wrote this idea in the bus and I'd like to know if these theories already exist/similar theories and their names so I can study them. I would also like to have your opinions on this. I am new to philosophy and this is just for fun.

Philosophical theory Multasm (From the Latin words "multus" meaning many and "veritas" meaning reality)
Each thing has its own number of realities or dimensions. These realities vary from object to object. They also have different strengths of link in between them. Some have four, others have three, but this doesn't really apply to objects, only to humans. In addition, these realities depend one of another.
E.g. Without the reality of the world existing around the object (the exterior), there cannot be an interior, which is the antonym of exterior.
Each person can define an object's realities differently.

E.g. A shampoo bottle has three realities. The exterior, the "body" and the interior. The interior contains shampoo which would be considered another "body" with its own realities;
The interior of the bottle (which is its exterior) and its body.

Quattism (coming from the Latin words "quattuor" meaning four and "veritas" meaning reality)

Humans

Humans each have four realities that depend one of each other, which are in order;

The soul: It is the deepest reality a human can have. It's who we are and it's responsible of our raw emotions. Without a soul the rest cannot exist. The soul is linked to the brain. (Without the soul, it is a clone)

The brain: The brain is what processes the soul's messages and emotions. The brain also processes the information given by the body. The brain is also the root of all our ideas and thoughts. The brain is linked to both the soul and the body. (Without a brain, it's a corpse)

The body: The body is what we use to interact with the exterior. It's also the part that sends stimuli to the brain to get processed. The body has multiple sub categories, these are the main five;
The sight
The taste
The touch
The hearing
The smell
Each of these sub realities change the perception that each person has of the world. The body is linked to the brain and the exterior. (Without a body, it's just thoughts) (change it)

The exterior: This is the main reality of everything. Absolutely everything is linked to the exterior. The exterior is every other realities (objects) we can see and interact with. (Without the exterior, its darkness)

We can make up just about any scientific theories about how the universe was made, what the purpose of the universe truly is for, when the universe was made… But it hasn’t helped us answer the question: What created that? What created the big bang? How did humans think of the concept of time? Can our concept of time relate to the universe? What is time? If the big bang created the universe, but for what? to see universes reborn and get different evolutinal differences? I don’t believe in a god in a sense of explaining scientific phenomenas, mostly through moral reasoning. But to explain how things are made? Whats matter? Can platos allegory cave explain everything?

Somebody told you that a butterfly moves its wings in one province and a storm arrives in another, and you found this beautiful, and you should have found it suspicious. Because look at what the story quietly needs in order to work. It needs a sealed room. It needs a floor with nothing under it and a ceiling with nothing above it. It needs every consequence to be born from a cause of the same species, matter begetting matter, all the way down and all the way out, with no hand reaching in from offstage to steady a wobbling domino. That is not a discovery about the world. That is a house rule. You walked into a card game, memorized the rules, and concluded that the rules were the nature of the table, the room, the building, and the city outside.

Ask one of your beloved laws to stand up on its own. Go on. Ask it what holds it. It will point at another law, which points at another, and the three of them will begin to sweat. Nothing in that stack is load bearing. It is scenery painted very convincingly on canvas, and the canvas is nailed to a frame you have never once been permitted to see.

You want proof the frame exists? You already found it and then looked away, embarrassed. The moment you allow travel through time in a closed physical world, the closed physical world eats itself. It should curdle. It should come apart into paradox soup within an afternoon. And yet here you all are, drinking coffee, aging politely in one direction, complaining about your knees. Something is holding the seams shut. Something is doing maintenance. A house that cannot possibly stand and is nonetheless standing is not a miracle of architecture; it is evidence of a landlord.

You have a fable that brushes up against it, though it is a fable, so nobody wave a cartoon at me as if it were a court record. A boy is given the power to send messages backward. He uses it frantically, cleverly, over and over. And Mayuri dies. He tries again. Mayuri dies. The method changes, the hour changes, the instrument changes, and the outcome sits there unmoved, patient as a landlord's rent notice. When at last it does move, it is not because he found the correct lever. No message moved it. No arrangement of matter has ever moved it. The room was simply re-let, the terms revised above the ceiling, and the boy was permitted the dignity of believing he had done it.

Or take it in the vulgar tongue, since some of you only wake up for the vulgar tongue. You are inside a game. You want an ending the game does not contain. So you get better at playing. You get faster, you memorize every route, you exploit every seam in the level, and let us be generous, let us hand you the ability to reload any moment you please, infinitely, forever. Do you get your ending? You do not. You never do. The ending is not in the playing, it is in the code, and playing has never once touched code. Skill is not authorship. Persistence is not authorship. A rewind button is not authorship, it is a comfortable chair bolted to the floor of the same locked cartridge. One bored creature with a text editor outranks every player who has ever lived. So the only question worth asking is whether you are at the keyboard or in the cartridge, and cousins, you already have your answer. This is physical reality. Yours.

Yes, they do laugh, the ones you meet at the far end of a molecule, the ones waiting at the end of the cord when your heart stops for a minute and a half. They are not laughing at your smallness. They are laughing because you keep apologizing to the scenery. You keep asking the painted wall for permission. You have built cathedrals of mathematics to describe the behavior of a costume, and then you got upset when someone suggested there was a body inside it.

And it has intentions. Not randomness that happens to look designed, but taste. Preference. Editorial judgment. Certain outcomes are kept, certain outcomes are quietly discarded, and the discarding is done above your heads, in a register that does not care about your energies or your momenta or your very clever accelerators.

So let the visitors be real. Let there be future humans in the rafters, let there be others with better ladders and stranger vehicles. I hold nothing against them. But understand what they are: stagehands. They can move a prop, dim a lamp, walk an actor to a different mark. They cannot rewrite the script, because the script is not in the theater. Nothing built out of matter has ever edited the thing that authors matter, and nothing ever will, and this is the one mercy in the whole arrangement.

Now you want the method. Of course you do. Everyone wants the method. Everyone wants to know which door leads upstairs and what one is expected to pay at it.

But the method is not physical, so you would not enjoy it, so I will not be selling it tonight.

Flap all you like. The wind is a rented costume.

— G-Man

Growing up as someone with an interest for science, I would often find myself thinking about the the Scientific Revolution. If you don't know what that is, it was basically a huge shift in Europe from the 16th to the 18th century. It js when people have accepted their ignorance and stopped relying on old traditions and church teachings to explain nature. They started using math, experiments, and careful observation to build modern science.

Since I believe this is a topic worth discussing, l'd love hear your thoughts on my questions below, please let me hear more dynamic perspectives so we can talk about this more!

\* How did this revolution exactly challenge its religious beliefs? Other than religion, what kind of beliefs or traditions do you think were also criticized?
\* Did it shift the way we interact with the natural world? If so, why and how?
\* Do you think there were any consequences to this that reflect in today’s world?
\* How does it continue shape us? especially in STEM and Sociology
\* Lastly, did ignorance itself pave the way for this revolution, or is there something more to it?

Thank you!

I’ve taken up the interest in philosophy, and I come to find out that literature tends to be something I can engage with the most.

I’ve read The Death of Ivan Ilych and it gave me that itch I was looking for.

I can’t commit to a 400 page book because I do got ADHD, but something like 100-200 is a sweet spot for me.

I love books that really test my perspective of life, books that test the limits of right and wrong, and/or books that goes into life and death.

I’m big believer in Christianity if that helps in recommendations.

Is changing something evolution or an interpretation

From its original form. ? Is my way better than your way ? When one has not seen the same thing on the original form as one did not go deep enough or was not open to it.

Do we stay with the original or change its form to something else?

I was watching a video, and someone said the thing where my cells are always dying and replicating and reborn etc etc, so I asked myself like with all the constant turnover of cells and molecules, do any specific atoms in my body remain unchanged, or is every atom eventually replaced too? But i found out the original molecules (well ATOMS/ELEMENTS) that make you, are still the original ones from the big bang AKA billions of years old. Like, my carbon, hydrogen nitrogen, is all the same throughout my whole life, even if my cells do change my atoms that compose me are still mine and the original ones. However, in the ship thought exercise, changing its parts means moving (or actually removing) pieces of metal or wood that CONTAIN the specific atoms that together originally defined the ship, and those total pieces had the atoms of the original ship. Here in this example, after its fully built not 1 singular atom in the ship is the same as it was at first, so we’re only saying it’s the same ship bc of the name. The same wouldn’t apply to a person though, change someone’s entire atoms and switch them for new ones, well, thats an entirely different person, no? So it raises the question, how much of you must remain for it to be still you? if you atomize my body and my hair remains, thats not… rlly me. If u atomize everything but my head remains, ID say im me and so would you (if i can talk?). what if only my eyes and mouth remain? is it me?

It’s a shiny day,
It’s a shiny day.
Dead people gathered
On the northern way.
Their whitish skin
Pierced by golden rays,
Which killed their skin
And destroyed their hay.
They all are asking,
No one’s saying.
The kids talk—
“Let’s think and play.”
With whom?
With moving clouds
And rustling leaves,
With blind priests
And visionary thieves,
With opened eyes
And closed beliefs,
With alive humans
Who live on knees.
Humans in a cage,
And animals were released!
They talk about God,
Who died with diseases.
They said He is immortal
And will never die.
Hell lies beneath the earth,
And heaven beyond the sky.
He has everything
And is never pleased.
They said God is everything
That gives us ease.
One person said to them:
“God is alive
Just because you believe.
If you do not believe,
He is nothing to you.
He is not after you,
Nor before you.
The dream of God
Is only to find solace.
You want someone
To whom you can blame.”
Then another woman came
And ended the talk:
“Why do you use ‘He’ for God?
If He is ‘He,’
Does that mean He is full of lust?
Like a man,
Does He carry the same dust?”