It is preferable to live one day with inner peace than a thousand years without.
- Jake4020
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 8
- Joined: May 4th, 2021, 1:05 am
Re: It is preferable to live one day with inner peace than a thousand years without.
- ADNamin
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: May 8th, 2021, 4:14 pm
Re: It is preferable to live one day with inner peace than a thousand years without.
I agree with all of these that, yes, it is indeed preferable to do as mentioned in the first part of each sentence listed.
I think we can move to the metaphysical and state that it is essential to experience refined states of consciousness in which joy, wellbeing, radiant health, love, intelligence and Reason exist.
If we look, for example at Plato, we can see that it is posited that we need to go beyond the world presented to us by the senses in order to do this.
Our senses are, of course, important ... but to experience the states you have mentioned we need to go beyond them. Most spiritual practice involves achieving this transcendence. However, there may be many ways of doing this. It is perhaps only important that we are able to experience 'truth' by any number of possible means. The joy is - that it is possible to do so - I'd really recommend meditation for anyone seeking this. I'd also recommend profound philosophy such as that found in Buddhism and Vedanta.
If we look at Kant's, Schopenhauer's or Hegel's work we can see that these selfsame these are approached - nature of reality and how we may experience it, particularly via Reason.
Philosophy's real purpose is to provide knowledge which leads to Reason, that is, knowledge beyond the information provided by the mechanations of the senses within the subjective self.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: It is preferable to live one day with inner peace than a thousand years without.
Meditation is a distinct brain-mind state. Constant meditation awareness would not keep you alive. Sometimes, maybe most of one's waking time, you have to try to make decisions to act in focused ways. To stay alive it is best to be at least a little worried about what is going to happen.I'd really recommend meditation for anyone seeking this.
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Re: It is preferable to live one day with inner peace than a thousand years without.
I disagree.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑May 8th, 2021, 12:25 am The properties of some things simply cannot be measured in grades, such as being pregnant, being a male, being a mammal, being inanimate, being pregnant, etc.
Is Caitlyn Jenner a male? What about a person born with a Y Chromosome and a vagina, namely someone with androgen insensitivity syndrome?
If aliens put my body in a special machine that steadily morphed it second-by-second into a lizard over the course of 100 days, such that each second over those 100 days I become a bit more lizard-like and a bit less Scott-like, on what day would I suddenly instead move from the discreet state of being 100% a mammal to being 100% non-mammal? Wouldn't a nominalistic view require realizing that concept of Scott-ness, human-ness-, and mammalianess are all actually imaginary and thus on roughly day 50 of 100 I'd be roughly 50% the human Scott and 50% lizard?
I would tend to agree, but for the same reason I would tend to think of a self-driving car as animate as well, at least partly. But again that's because I don't look at really things as being 100% absolutely totally animate or 100% absolutely totally inanimate.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑May 8th, 2021, 12:25 am I don't thing an egg, fertilized or not, is considered an inanimate object.
I don't believe discreet states really exist. I'm surprised that as a nominalist you do.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying, or misunderstanding nominalism, or both, but the above statement appears to me to be incompatible with nominalism.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑May 8th, 2021, 12:25 am No, you're confusing the level of development of the woman's pregnancy (a process in itself) with the property of the women being pregnant.
Scott wrote: I think a better analogy may be age of consent laws, such as how in one jurisdiction it could be the case that a day before someone's 18th birthday (when the person is 17 years, 364 days old, counting from time of birth) the person is considered 100% unable to consent, and then two days later is considered totally able to consent. The idea of discreet states is a symptom of conceptualization, not reality itself. As such, the exact conceptual borders between the black-states and the white-states tend to be arbitrary and controversial, since reality is actually a continuum of dancing grays.
I agree, and I think that's essentially how biological taxonomy works as well, and more roughly speaking how all taxonomy works.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑May 8th, 2021, 12:25 am Since human psychology and social life are so complex, since there's so much diversity, variations among individuals, precise definitions of people's characteristics and behaviors according to given parameters are impossible, so for practical purposes average estimations are used and conventions set, and then people judged against the convention (which is not unfair at all, given that conventions [laws] are public and people are aware they can be made accountable on that basis). So the age of consent is merely a rule, not a stated property of individuals.
The conceptual line drawn between the 17-year-364-day-old and the 18-year-old with one being 100% child and the other being 100% adult would be analogous the conceptual line drawn that would have one say that mammals suddenly popped into existence in one day and didn't exist the previous previous day at all even partly in some gray area between non-mammal and mammal, such that the parent(s) of a creature were 100% not mammals but their offspring was 100% mammal.
The same goes for the process of abiogenesis. I simply disagree with the idea there is no gray area between the black-and-white concepts of total 100% lifelessness and total 100% lifefulness. Even if Newtonian mechanics were true such that it makes sense to think of things happening at the same time across even small units of space, it just doesn't make sense to think that the universe from some discreet 100% lifeless state one second to having life the next second, with no gray area between the two black-and-white binary conceptual states.
I believe binary-ness is a symptom of conceptualization, not something that exists in actual concrete reality. Figuratively speaking, concrete reality is shades of gray on a continuous spectrum of infinite shades of gray, with no black and white. Our human minds conceive of it using binary conceptualization such that we create a label X and say every single thing must either strictly be X or strictly be -X, which among other fallacies assumes that there are things and thus real thinghood. But the X-ness--whatever it is--never really exists, at least not in a binary black-and-white way.
Count Lucanor wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2021, 10:42 pm No. I guess it would be possible to make a machine so complex and sophisticated as to simulate almost perfectly the behavior of humans, but it would not be real human-like behavior, which implies conscious will, agency and self-regulating processes; it would be just a good imitation of a lifeless machine.
The question isn't if it's possible with current technology or anytime soon. But rather what if humans--or alternatively our machines, descendants, cyborgs, and/or AI technology--don't all go extinct--what about in a million years or a billion years?Count Lucanor wrote: ↑May 8th, 2021, 12:25 am No, I cannot agree. I never said anything like that. I only said that in the hypothetical scenario that you proposed (which I don't think is possible), if a robot made something identical to an ant, it would be an ant by its own right. Robots are simply way too far from achieving such a thing and they are most likely completely unable to do so, as the current state of technology shows.
Are you saying that not even in a million years could our machines out-do an ant?
What about the digitally evolved creatures made non-virtual as described in this Ted talk?
Could those ever out-do an ant?
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: It is preferable to live one day with inner peace than a thousand years without.
What do you think this person is? Because that which you think this person is, will be that and not the opposite in a binary relation, nor something in between. Biological sex is dimorphic = binary.Scott wrote: ↑May 12th, 2021, 2:57 pmI disagree.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑May 8th, 2021, 12:25 am The properties of some things simply cannot be measured in grades, such as being pregnant, being a male, being a mammal, being inanimate, being pregnant, etc.
Is Caitlyn Jenner a male?
They used to call them hermaphrodite, now intersex, but even when those conditions are seen, people are identified with being either male or female. In any case, even if it were true that sex categories are not discrete states, but continuous states in a spectrum, that would not change the distinction between discrete/continuous states.
I guess in any sci-fi story one can imagine the impossible, such as morphing into another species. What would happen if the impossible became suddenly possible in that imaginary world, you ask. Well then it would be true that species is a continuum, not a discrete state, in that imaginary world...In this actual world, that is not the case.Scott wrote: ↑May 12th, 2021, 2:57 pm If aliens put my body in a special machine that steadily morphed it second-by-second into a lizard over the course of 100 days, such that each second over those 100 days I become a bit more lizard-like and a bit less Scott-like, on what day would I suddenly instead move from the discreet state of being 100% a mammal to being 100% non-mammal? Wouldn't a nominalistic view require realizing that concept of Scott-ness, human-ness-, and mammalianess are all actually imaginary and thus on roughly day 50 of 100 I'd be roughly 50% the human Scott and 50% lizard?
Although you still would be wrong, you could think of a self-driving car as animate, but you could not think of it as partly animate. The first proposition is synthetic and simply has a problem of evidence based on the properties of living things, but the second one fails analytically: by being "partly" it's already denying the discrete property that is essential to being animate/inanimate. Of course, you can come up with your own personal definition of what being animate/inanimate is, and apply those properties to the problem, but that would run contrary to the standard scientific convention of what a living thing is.Scott wrote: ↑May 12th, 2021, 2:57 pmI would tend to agree, but for the same reason I would tend to think of a self-driving car as animate as well, at least partly. But again that's because I don't look at really things as being 100% absolutely totally animate or 100% absolutely totally inanimate.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑May 8th, 2021, 12:25 am I don't thing an egg, fertilized or not, is considered an inanimate object.
I don't see any problem with nominalism and having discrete and continuous states. Just because one denies universals and abstract objects doesn't mean one can make concepts arbitrary.
I don't see why. There are gradual stages of growth in pregnancy, but either one is pregnant or not.Scott wrote: ↑May 12th, 2021, 2:57 pmPerhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying, or misunderstanding nominalism, or both, but the above statement appears to me to be incompatible with nominalism.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑May 8th, 2021, 12:25 am No, you're confusing the level of development of the woman's pregnancy (a process in itself) with the property of the women being pregnant.
No, that's not how taxonomy works. Even if one can say that all such classifications are arbitrary conventions, once the criteria is set, and precise, distinctive properties used, the taxonomic definitions draw very clear lines. What makes a mammal is a pretty solid convention, while the age of consent is not and can easily change.Scott wrote: ↑May 12th, 2021, 2:57 pmI agree, and I think that's essentially how biological taxonomy works as well, and more roughly speaking how all taxonomy works.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑May 8th, 2021, 12:25 am Since human psychology and social life are so complex, since there's so much diversity, variations among individuals, precise definitions of people's characteristics and behaviors according to given parameters are impossible, so for practical purposes average estimations are used and conventions set, and then people judged against the convention (which is not unfair at all, given that conventions [laws] are public and people are aware they can be made accountable on that basis). So the age of consent is merely a rule, not a stated property of individuals.
The conceptual line drawn between the 17-year-364-day-old and the 18-year-old with one being 100% child and the other being 100% adult would be analogous the conceptual line drawn that would have one say that mammals suddenly popped into existence in one day and didn't exist the previous previous day at all even partly in some gray area between non-mammal and mammal, such that the parent(s) of a creature were 100% not mammals but their offspring was 100% mammal.
Perhaps you may want to disagree with the scientific consensus, I choose not to.
It doesn't matter. Once the criteria for what counts as living matter is set, then that's the border line that separates one state from the other.Scott wrote: ↑May 12th, 2021, 2:57 pm
Even if Newtonian mechanics were true such that it makes sense to think of things happening at the same time across even small units of space, it just doesn't make sense to think that the universe from some discreet 100% lifeless state one second to having life the next second, with no gray area between the two black-and-white binary conceptual states.
I disagree. There are plenty of binary states in the natural world, which even though are conceptualized by humans, rely on specific, objective properties. Sexual dimorphism, for example.Scott wrote: ↑May 12th, 2021, 2:57 pm
I believe binary-ness is a symptom of conceptualization, not something that exists in actual concrete reality. Figuratively speaking, concrete reality is shades of gray on a continuous spectrum of infinite shades of gray, with no black and white. Our human minds conceive of it using binary conceptualization such that we create a label X and say every single thing must either strictly be X or strictly be -X, which among other fallacies assumes that there are things and thus real thinghood. But the X-ness--whatever it is--never really exists, at least not in a binary black-and-white way.
Theoretically it may be possible in the future, but so what?Scott wrote: ↑May 12th, 2021, 2:57 pm
The question isn't if it's possible with current technology or anytime soon. But rather what if humans--or alternatively our machines, descendants, cyborgs, and/or AI technology--don't all go extinct--what about in a million years or a billion years?
Are you saying that not even in a million years could our machines out-do an ant?
"Video unavailable".Scott wrote: ↑May 12th, 2021, 2:57 pm
What about the digitally evolved creatures made non-virtual as described in this Ted talk?
Could those ever out-do an ant?
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Nikita
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: August 5th, 2021, 6:38 pm
Re: It is preferable to live one day with inner peace than a thousand years without.
- uexaldr
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: November 4th, 2021, 10:47 am
Re: It is preferable to live one day with inner peace than a thousand years without.
Thanks!
-
- Posts: 449
- Joined: October 22nd, 2021, 11:26 am
Re: It is preferable to live one day with inner peace than a thousand years without.
In 2011 I had tests done for cancer, about a month later the doctor phoned and said he urgently wanted to see me, it was non – Hodgkin Lymphoma. This was a name I recognised, our friend had this cancer, and died a few months later. Being told I had cancer was out of my hands, there was nothing I could do about it. But I still had choices; I could dictate how the cancer was going to affect my mind and my ability to cope with the news.
A few minutes after putting the phone down; I prayed for the wisdom, strength and peace to do God’s will, whether the cancer was a death sentence, or just an inconvenience. I can only say that from the moment of making this prayer, I have experienced a profound sense of peace that is beyond my understanding, and the thought of cancer has never troubled me for a moment.
I believe inner peace is a divine gift that is available to anyone.
- EagleEyes
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: December 31st, 2021, 7:25 pm
Re: It is preferable to live one day with inner peace than a thousand years without.
- AgentSmith
- Posts: 108
- Joined: January 29th, 2022, 1:55 am
Re: It is preferable to live one day with inner peace than a thousand years without.
Your question boils down to choose:
1. Happy and mortal (earthly existence more or less)
OR
2. Suffering and immortal (hell)
?
No prizes for guessing what (most) people would prefer.
-
- Posts: 449
- Joined: October 22nd, 2021, 11:26 am
- GrayArea
- Posts: 374
- Joined: March 16th, 2021, 12:17 am
Re: It is preferable to live one day with inner peace than a thousand years without.
In my opinion, the existence/life that contains the events in life(which either provides us with inner peace or takes away inner peace from us) precedes the events in terms of magnitude and significance. Life can happen without inner peace. Inner peace cannot happen with life. Life is a more significant thing to strive for.
Conclusion: We should choose the latter, but we know that we will end up choosing the first option, since the reason we want to choose the latter is because we think that is the right choice and that we always gain a sense of 'satisfaction' or 'inner peace' when we do what we want/what we think we ought to do! But if we gain more inner peace from choosing the other option, what will be stopping us?
- GrayArea
- Posts: 374
- Joined: March 16th, 2021, 12:17 am
Re: It is preferable to live one day with inner peace than a thousand years without.
Without* life. Just a little typo.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: It is preferable to live one day with inner peace than a thousand years without.
While I don't know what Eric himself implies by his question I infer that inner peace, if it means contentment with the world as it is, is not good for anybody. We should be discontented.
-
- Posts: 449
- Joined: October 22nd, 2021, 11:26 am
Re: It is preferable to live one day with inner peace than a thousand years without.
The world is full of injustice and suffering. Today I have spent time with two homeless men; and a man who has attempted to end his life several times; his story is horrific. I voluntarily spend a fair amount of time with deeply troubled people. In order to offer some kind of encouragement and support, we journey together over months and years.
There are choices, I have no obligation to see them again; they could be a burden. If I choose to see them again; do I have to listen to their stories and be depressed because of their circumstances? At some point we have to walk away, and we have some understanding of the suffering they will continue to encounter.
But the one thing that gives me hope is the peace that surpasses all understanding. If I can experience this peace in spite of some dark events in my life; then maybe I can help others to find this peace. I am fully aware that I can't change anybody, they have to change themselves, but I always search for hope.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023