whitetrshsoldier wrote:Wonder wrote:
Well, from a materialistic point of view this might be true whitetrshsoldier.
i am not a materialist, and I just don't think that everything is a result of neurons, cells, molecules etc.
I am more of a spirituality kind of philosopher, not an atheist, read Plato's theory of Forms.
Ideas are more than just matter, they are spirit
Actually it is the spiritual part of the mind that I am trying to get at with this question.
From where, then, does the "spirit" derive its force?
Because wherever that is from, it is then the dictator of "free-will", isn't it?
True- where does the spirit dirive its force when the exact motivational force in a persons life is his situationizing himself to that - in his mode of life or how he exists- it's the "situation" - that famous old debate about self deception and what forces the gay man to think about his existence in self deception- or his quality of being a homosexual in a cafe, his movements or otherwise- which alone at his house is thought about as a real existing structure to his conscious experience. That he has a connection to that conscious experience known to him- seems probably if not possible and most likely. But it's easier to say or admit that a person may
only
admit to that thought of the psyche in terms of what it woudl apply.
FOR INSTANCE I can't exactly psychoanalises myself in terms of existing only myself but I could if I had the proper knowledge- that isn't to say that I could think about myself like I exist myself- to do so removes connection from reality.
The key to understand would be to look at yourself exactly like you're a thing- that seems probable if not possible- then the conception would be to understand that you can't look at yourself like a fact- in terms of existing per the sake of another person you are forced to think about conversing in that regard you get knowledge- if that knowledge exists in communication- similar to saying that you have to think about the spirt in terms of existing it per the sake of it existing as a "philosophy of life" or otherwise if a given philosohpy of life.
Take for instance the issue of Schopenhauer and how his ideas of the ethical commitments were to take up 4 distinct different notations.
He then saught out for the rest of his life- a truth- ethical absolutely- in terms of what it would mean with respect to being real in terms of ethics.
What then is the spirit when all about us is war and women are though of as superior because they are evolving in terms of society.
And when society is to see itself in terms of its own evolution we will think of -this moment- this day in time- when we did nothing other than sit back and allow people the most uncomfortable of all existence which they wouldl ivei n the future?
What an absurdity.
I will never submit to somoene telling me that the truth has not been discovered therefore the truth does not exist. A person who is to exist as himself with respect to "solving or discovering the truth" is limited in that everyone knows that this "truth" exists per the sake of wanting desiring or thinking that they can find it for themselves- which provokes war.
The idea is worthwhile with respect to guides of ethics commensurate with "spirit" and also commensurate with what is thought at any rate as ideal reality- in respect to ideal reality it's easiest to say to yourself that with regard to ideal reality you have to say "okay, so there is potentially an ideal reality"- heidegger hismelf stated that we had "fell out of touch with being" and that in his later works he undertake to the blood and gut of the issue and told how it was or is supposed to be right- but himself never commented as to how it would allow the truth to exist itself. No one said Nietzsche one time- speaking aabout schopehnuar- "discovered the truth"- and surely he died hugging a horse- but he didn't live by faulty docterines and also had the same issue of self deception that all others do.
Before you commit to a defination- submit to an explaination- or- before you commit to defination submit to defination.
There are many ethical guides and norms also descriptive of early youth in how a person or individual is required or able or willing permittied and forced to understand hi reality in terms of the fact that it is absolutely and fundamentally actually how it is meant to be and even with respect to ethical guidelines- myself- I am interested in these- because of the fact that when you go out to train yousle fknowing hte world is precisely with respect to that ethical norm of childhood or when your early youthful aspiratiosn were as high up as those as they would be for some time later in the future you soared- and at that moment of soaring- you thought you ethics were absolute- what if someone told you that they were or were not and that you knew that they were right.
What if by some instance the proper couse of society is to exist for the sake of that spirit- and what if that ethical course is defined as spirit. Who can say who knows. But with regard to early youth and how a person may or must submit to the fact that his duty in life is to follow a course of ethics consistent and applicability wise with respect to his attitude- it'd be difficult to state that you couldn't do so.
What's for instance a limit to language given our evolutionary herritage? And what ethical norms are abided by which are spoken of in terms of absolutum with out regard to any given absolute ethical norm with is absolute itself?
The point is who knows and you since will never discover what a ethical norm is you can not nor ever will discover what one is until you apply it your self.
The only application to truth self or dignity thereof is the self- the self application and the norm of dignity with respect free will dterminism and otherwise which are all very evident just by typing messages on a keyboard.
Yopu think we as humans are some pos pathetic creations meant to discuss and type to a keyboard without a consistent ethical attitude and guide. Do you hoenstly believe sincerely and honestly sothat at these times in your early you you did not commit to it for youself and for the rest of you days and life.
And the first person who states that he or she has- would be looked at and questioned interestingly- and yet the person who states no would be frowned on. I would ask why and see to it that the people of thi world are motivated to the proper course and no bologonia such as a non existent ethical spirit or nom which does not exist as it is - seems to be to me at any rate- mean tto .
[/b]
