I strongly believe that nature is the truth for all life and wonder why there is no longer a functioning religion on it?

Materialism and stories are not the answers. One can find themselves in nature, live and survive. it is all one needs. it is the truth of which our society rejects and harms.

I think you're begging a few questions here. For one thing, "truth" can be defined in at least four different and mutually exclusive ways.

For another, are you talking about nature in the sense that the Transcendalist poets (Wordsworth, for instance) used it, or in the sense that Aldous Huxley used in his essay "Nature in the Tropics" or none of the above.

Or are you talking about pantheism?

im thinkin more of the Transcendentalists. self-reliance, etc

Truth is the roots of life, away from materialism

shit like the iphone is straying people farther from nature and the ultimate reality, i believe.

im thinkin more of the Transcendentalists. self-reliance, etc

Truth is the roots of life, away from materialism

shit like the iphone is straying people farther from nature and the ultimate reality, i believe.

Yet you tell us this on a computer. If you really believe naturalism to be the way, then go give it a try. Now then, if you cannot practice what you preach, then do not preach it. I preach possession by the Holy Spirit because I let it come into me; aside from the Truth it teaches me, I know nothing of Truth. When I speak without it, I speak deceptions. When I act without it, I commit murder. When I think without it, I commit blasphemy. When It is in me, I am with God and do not lie, nor harm, nor walk with sin. That is some of the Truth I have been taught. Teach only as you walk if you care anything for integrity.

"If you really believe naturalism to be the way, then go give it a try"

as I have. This summer, I was in the Talkeetna Mountains, Alaska, for a month. Completely astray from large scale society, this is where I first made these realizations. That much time in the tundra changes you and your perceptions about living and simplicity. That expedition completely changed my views on this society. (stores, entertainment, etc). To be cold, wet, and hungry for that long of a period of time may lead to irrational ideas, but this one holds strong.

-humbletheif

"If you really believe naturalism to be the way, then go give it a try"

as I have. This summer, I was in the Talkeetna Mountains, Alaska, for a month. Completely astray from large scale society, this is where I first made these realizations. That much time in the tundra changes you and your perceptions about living and simplicity. That expedition completely changed my views on this society. (stores, entertainment, etc). To be cold, wet, and hungry for that long of a period of time may lead to irrational ideas, but this one holds strong.

-humbletheif

Good man.

The longest I've been exempt from society was five months. Nature is ruthless and impartial. I respect it deeply.

Society= nature ^^

So by nature, you don't mean the natural world, but rather physical spots on earth where there are few other humans or organized society?? Seems like you are really limiting yourself in where and how to find truth.

Ah but I do mean the natural world. It is just so hard to find in society. So many distractions, others ideas being forced onto you. It all brings one farther away from the natural world, from Truth

check some native american beliefs

Ah but I do mean the natural world. It is just so hard to find in society. So many distractions, others ideas being forced onto you. It all brings one farther away from the natural world, from Truth

?? Living 'in society' is just as being part of the natural world as living outside of it, unless you are positing that there are supernatural or metaphysical things in society, which do not exist outside of society. The only thing I can think of is that you're speaking of hyperreality, concepts, images, or ideas as being metaphysical (at least partially), which are all more prevalent in society, though not any less 'true' that what you'll find in the outdoors.

That is the opposite at what I am getting at Kiko. I disagree that society is as natural as nature, if that's what you're saying. Society is the anti-nature (need better word choice, same idea). Whatever is in nature is oppressed and constrained by side walks, roads, consumerism...You can't find wildlife in the city. Thinking of Native American beliefs, one wouldn't find their spirit animal on a vision quest in a city - limited enlightenment.

For nearly every large scale religion, a character in their stories is given truths from nature. Right now I can think of Moses, going away from society, into the mountains to receive the 10 commandments. The symbol of enlightenment for Buddhism is a lone tree on a plateau - little less relevant.

"...hyperreality, concepts, images, or ideas as being metaphysical (at least partially), which are all more prevalent in society"

What do you mean?

Yet you tell us this on a computer. .

Why not? The internet is only a tool--the greatest and most powerful tool for communication yet devised. The Essenes used scrolls--we use the net. The difference is quantitative, not qualitative.

I am reminded of the old saying "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. . . . ."

That is the opposite at what I am getting at Kiko. I disagree that society is as natural as nature, if that's what you're saying. Society is the anti-nature (need better word choice, same idea). Whatever is in nature is oppressed and constrained by side walks, roads, consumerism...You can't find wildlife in the city. Thinking of Native American beliefs, one wouldn't find their spirit animal on a vision quest in a city - limited enlightenment.

For nearly every large scale religion, a character in their stories is given truths from nature. Right now I can think of Moses, going away from society, into the mountains to receive the 10 commandments. The symbol of enlightenment for Buddhism is a lone tree on a plateau - little less relevant.

"...hyperreality, concepts, images, or ideas as being metaphysical (at least partially), which are all more prevalent in society"

What do you mean?


I think we have a misunderstanding. Earlier in the thread I asked if by the nature you meant 'everything in the natural world' or 'spots on earth apart from society' (ie empty forests, the mountains, deserts, jungles, etc.) To which you responded:

"Ah but I do mean the natural world. It is just so hard to find in society. So many distractions, others ideas being forced onto you. It all brings one farther away from the natural world, from Truth"

But I feel now that you really mean the 2nd meaning, places apart from society/people, not all that is the natural world. If something is not part of the natural world, then it is supernatural or metaphysical. In this sense, nature = truth would be answered by materialism. But I think you mean areas on earth where human constructions are absent, so you mean artificial or constructed, not unnatural (though there are still animal constructions in the wilderness).




"...hyperreality, concepts, images, or ideas as being metaphysical (at least partially), which are all more prevalent in society"

What do you mean?

I meant these are the only things that exist moreso in society than in the wilderness that SOME people may contend are metaphysical. Other than this, I can think of nothing other than ghosts (if you believed in such a thing) that is not part of the material universe that could exist moreso in society than in the wilderness.


Still, I contend there is more truth to be found in society and interacting with others than isolating one in wilderness, waiting for some elitist notion of englightenment. Surely I would not argue that people living in tribes understand more about the universe, or much of anything, than harvard grads.

5char

You guys are assuming there is a truth.
maybe our concept of truth, ideals,and perception, is just the product of our finite mind testing the system. Just like monkeys. But then again...the truth is something that is. And the concept of "is" is but another deluded perception.

Oh wait...what I just stated is but another ideal. Maybe the truth is not actually "something" but a point at witch you are satisfied with the answer. When the individual believes something is concrete. When he gets tired of thinking or physical limitations prohibit further comprehension. Even the concept of delusion is subjective.

So in the quest for knowledge we must accept the infinity to which we are born?

But Einstein stated "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is all comprehensible"

But is there anything beyond the universe?

My mind says that if it can be understood then what is the medium it which it exists? Maybe existence is just a thing is this universe, this dimension.

I dont know if i am going against what Einstein believed in.
That is very intimidating.
I am only 16 after all so maybe i must live and feel some more pain a to finally give in like everyone else.

Just putting that out there,

You guys are assuming there is a truth.
maybe our concept of truth, ideals,and perception, is just the product of our finite mind testing the system. Just like monkeys. But then again...the truth is something that is. And the concept of "is" is but another deluded perception.

Oh wait...what I just stated is but another ideal. Maybe the truth is not actually "something" but a point at witch you are satisfied with the answer. When the individual believes something is concrete. When he gets tired of thinking or physical limitations prohibit further comprehension. Even the concept of delusion is subjective.

So in the quest for knowledge we must accept the infinity to which we are born?

Very well stated

Humbletheif:

4000 million years ago, life appears on this planet.
505 million years ago, vertebrates appear.
315 million years ago, we came to land.
7 million years ago, we develop the larynx
1.8 million, Homo erectus evolves in Africa
10,000 bc. The invention of farming.
3,000 bc. Our first cities.

The point is you should never feel distanced from nature. Our cities, our cars, the pollution, computers, ipods and televisions are all at our command. They're tools to help us lighten the load as we work together into the future where human destiny awaits. Each human has been plagued with the feeling his time is dull but have no doubt humans of the future will look back to our era with a sense of excitement.

I believe it's only ever our ego that will prevent us from feeling complete (in the city, or the country, ad nausium).

I think we have a misunderstanding. Earlier in the thread I asked if by the nature you meant 'everything in the natural world' or 'spots on earth apart from society' (ie empty forests, the mountains, deserts, jungles, etc.) To which you responded:
...
But I feel now that you really mean the 2nd meaning, places apart from society/people, not all that is the natural world. If something is not part of the natural world, then it is supernatural or metaphysical. In this sense, nature = truth would be answered by materialism. But I think you mean areas on earth where human constructions are absent, so you mean artificial or constructed, not unnatural (though there are still animal constructions in the wilderness).




Now we're on the same page (almost). What I mean is getting away from what society gives us- becoming closer with nature (nature, as in ideas-or the absent of ideas-before society). I do mean actual nature, wilderness, but it doesn't have to be so.

I agree with your ideas on solitude, that relations with others is important and much more than the idea of isolation to gain the "elitist notion of enlightenment"

Maybe relations with others in a deeper sense is the truth-the ultimate enlightenment-which is natural. It is just easier to get the purest form of friendship in wilderness

Humbletheif:


The point is you should never feel distanced from nature. Our cities, our cars, the pollution, computers, ipods and televisions are all at our command. They're tools to help us lighten the load as we work together into the future where human destiny awaits. Each human has been plagued with the feeling his time is dull but have no doubt humans of the future will look back to our era with a sense of excitement.



CatharticWeek, are you saying materialism and consumerism are what defines human progress, that there is nothing more to being a human in this generation than listening to your ipod, watching TV, and building bigger buildings?

CatharticWeek, are you saying materialism and consumerism are what defines human progress, that there is nothing more to being a human in this generation than listening to your ipod, watching TV, and building bigger buildings?

actually, pretty much right on. if u dont believe that then u are stupid. that may not be completely true for the entire world population, but for america that is exactly right.

that is for this era in human history though. i believe it will only get worse from now on. and i think that the more technologically advanced we have gotten, the less attracted to nature we have become. and im not talking about environmentalism or climate control people, im talking about regular people going out and enjoying/living in nature. we'd rather be inside watching tv or being on the computer or on the phone talking to people or whathaveyou instead of experiencing nature.

i must admit, i dont get out into nature as much as i would like, but those times when i am out, it is such an awesome feeling that i just cant explain it. :)

Yeah man, that's how it is. Really messed up. I cant see things changing for the better

This reminds me of the movie Into the Wild and the book Ishmael, both very good and thought provoking.

I strongly believe that nature is the truth for all life and wonder why there is no longer a functioning religion on it?

Materialism and stories are not the answers. One can find themselves in nature, live and survive. it is all one needs. it is the truth of which our society rejects and harms.

buddhism... one of the most popular religions on earth.

I think we all are exactly who we want to be. Its just the failure to comprehend that kills me.

im thinkin more of the Transcendentalists. self-reliance, etc

Truth is the roots of life, away from materialism

shit like the iphone is straying people farther from nature and the ultimate reality, i believe.

what if its a band singing songs with a message that nature=truth?

actually,i believe it will only get worse from now on. )

ahh the age of kali eh

"when flowers will be begot within flowers, and fruits within fruits, then will the Yuga comes to an end. And the clouds will pour rain unseasonably when the end of the Yuga approaches"

and the reptilian beasts overrule our existence!

I strongly believe that nature is the truth for all life and wonder why there is no longer a functioning religion on it?

Materialism and stories are not the answers. One can find themselves in nature, live and survive. it is all one needs. it is the truth of which our society rejects and harms.

If nature is the truth, then the truth is that life is harsh and unyielding and may end violently at any moment. Perhaps as a meal for a predator, or consumed by some nasty natural virus, and don't you just love those nature shows were the lion is gorging on the guts of a still living animal. Lets not also forget the other wonders of nature like fires and storms and tsunamis.

There is something refreshing about the wilderness but there's also a lot of good things in human society and; if humans and their creations are not natural what are they? Do we contend that ants and their structures are not natural? We live in cities because it affords us protection, against predators, other humans; and living in groups allows us to team up to meet the curve balls thrown by mother nature.

Can't you see how your points are entirely subjective? Interesting, but while you may feel able to survive in the wild many would not. Plus you missed the best points, made in this thread, by Cathartic Week:
Each human has been plagued with the feeling his time is dull but have no doubt humans of the future will look back to our era with a sense of excitement.

I believe it's only ever our ego that will prevent us from feeling complete (in the city, or the country, ad nausium).

Don't you find it interesting, that most human utopias and ideals actually go completely against the essence of nature?

What is nature? Anything could be defined as natural.

Sure humans began domesticating animals, started to learn how to raise and harvest crops and fine tune their agriculture techniques; they changed from band level and tribal societies into modern civilization, into us; this all happened naturally and civilization is natural.

But Ecoli is natural too, and you certainly don't want that in your system. Ecoli hasn't always been what it is now, it has evolved from other bacteria. Just like humans haven't always been what we are now, we have evolved from other bacteria - just like all life on the planet.

Even now as we have changed and adapted in a way that may be unique to all our ancestors and allows us to contemplate all this and realize the awesomeness of it all, we are dependent on bacteria. There is something like ten times more bacteria cells then human cells in your body. They are all around us, they are the basis of everything else that is alive. Bacteria are like a superorganism.

And like in any other system, like in the human body for example, when something invades the body and tries to use the body for it's own purposes as if our bodies were resources to be sucked dry, our bodies fight back. When we began to take over this system we have been born out of, when we began to think of the animals and plants and the world as things to be dominated and controlled and used, as no more then property ... that is when the superorganism reacted. That is when we became an infection to Mother Earth. And that is when all modern human diseases began.

Before, when humans weren't distracted with ideas of civilization and dominance, we didn't get worse illnesses then stomach aches, occasional food poisoning. When we began to stick our noses outside of our natural environments, living in close contact with various animals and crops, we began getting diseases we didn't have before. Anthrax came from the soil. Siphelus came from sheep. And when we eventually began to move into cities, lived and ate where we would shit, lived next to garbage dumps, that's when shit really started to hit the fan.

Our attempts to dominate the world have all been part of a natural process. But that doesn't mean it's not harming the world, and harming ourselves. It is also natural for us to have the ability to choose how we live. And maybe if our fathers of old had chosen to live with the world and thought that instead of owning the world, the world owned them, then maybe both the world and human society wouldn't be in the depressing states they are.

im thinkin more of the Transcendentalists. self-reliance, etc

Truth is the roots of life, away from materialism

shit like the iphone is straying people farther from nature and the ultimate reality, i believe.

that and shit like computers, right?

You're all wrong. Society without capitalism and government = nature. Hence, Anarchism = truth. Breathe it, live it, believe it.

You're all wrong. Society without capitalism and government = nature. Hence, Anarchism = truth. Breathe it, live it, believe it.

When you are dying of your flu and there are no medicine to help you, you'll think otherwise.

When you are dying of your flu and there are no medicine to help you, you'll think otherwise.

Ignorant guy is ignorant guy.

Anarchism is the natural organization of humans, as observed in hunter-gatherer groups.

It is only in the (artificial) industrialized civilization that you see the alienation of the self. True, there have been many medical developments made in the capitalist epoch; however, these are tied to the problems we face in society today.

The best course of action as an advanced and technological society is Anarchism. We would still have the valuable innovations garnered during the elite/capitalist eras, but all the negative externalities of capitalism would not exist.

Para el sanamiento del espiritu.

Ignorant guy is ignorant guy.

Anarchism is the natural organization of humans, as observed in hunter-gatherer groups.

It is only in the (artificial) industrialized civilization that you see the alienation of the self. True, there have been many medical developments made in the capitalist epoch; however, these are tied to the problems we face in society today.

The best course of action as an advanced and technological society is Anarchism. We would still have the valuable innovations garnered during the elite/capitalist eras, but all the negative externalities of capitalism would not exist.

Para el sanamiento del espiritu.

The movement forward will stop. What will replace capitalism? Don't forget, that in the beginning there was no capitalism. It came along naturally, because it's to get something back when you help someone. Money is just there to make it easier for everyone. If you get rid of it, you will have to enforce non-capitalism in any of it's form, which will result in tyranny and the downfall of society.
You say we will keep using the current technology. Who will manage the production? Who will come up with new ideas, and organise new production? Who will weed out the unsuccessful ideas from the successful ones?

I would agree with you if you were to keep capitalism. Then, anarchy would be a non-reachable ideal, where everyone follows the laws because they understand what the laws are for and agree that they are for the best of themselves and the society they live in. In real life, libertarianism is the closest we can come to maximum personal freedom and minimalistic government.

The movement forward will stop. What will replace capitalism?

Libertarian Socialism or Anarchism will replace Capitalism. Hopefully.


Don't forget, that in the beginning there was no capitalism. It came along naturally, because it's to get something back when you help someone.


That can be disputed, kind sir. The man who coined the term, Karl Marx, defined Capitalism as the epoch in which the means of production are owned privately.


Money is just there to make it easier for everyone. If you get rid of it, you will have to enforce non-capitalism in any of it's form, which will result in tyranny and the downfall of society.


"Non-capitalism", as you put it, only has to be enforced if it is an ELITE system. Elite systems are forms of human organization where hierarchy is the base structure. Why would I want to subject myself to an elite system if I'm not at top?

It is this structure that is the source of the alienation of the individual and also conflicts of various kind. A quick glimpse at history supports this theory.


You say we will keep using the current technology. Who will manage the production? Who will come up with new ideas, and organise new production? Who will weed out the unsuccessful ideas from the successful ones?


Workers can manage their own production. That way, production is more efficient because the intent would not be to satisfy consumption and a profitable quota but to meet genuine needs.



I would agree with you if you were to keep capitalism. Then, anarchy would be a non-reachable ideal, where everyone follows the laws because they understand what the laws are for and agree that they are for the best of themselves and the society they live in. In real life, libertarianism is the closest we can come to maximum personal freedom and minimalistic government.


The ideas of libertarianism where written during a pre-industrial era; hence, libertarianism alone is not a good philosophy to model a contemporary society. Also, a system based on capitalist-libertarian ideas is an ELITE system that needs to be imposed upon people. Free markets were imposed upon people in Latin America, and much poverty and tyranny can be attributed to them.

That can be disputed, kind sir. The man who coined the term, Karl Marx, defined Capitalism as the epoch in which the means of production are owned privately.

Well - a lot of workers now own shares in the companies they work for. Or, if the company is public, have the option to buy them. Does it mean it is not capitalism any more?



"Non-capitalism", as you put it, only has to be enforced if it is an ELITE system. Elite systems are forms of human organization where hierarchy is the base structure. Why would I want to subject myself to an elite system if I'm not at top?

It is this structure that is the source of the alienation of the individual and also conflicts of various kind. A quick glimpse at history supports this theory.

An hierarchy in a society is inevitable. The only question is whether it is viewed as legitimate and fair in the eyes of the people or not.
Some people are more hard-working than others. Some people think faster, are more eager to learn, come up with better ideas, and are more enthusiastic about their work than others. Naturally, they become the "elite" - and normally, people are ok with that - as they realise they can become the elite if they themselves work better, come up with better ideas, take the responsibilities, etc.
Now, if a group of people that don't "deserve" to be the elite (in the eyes of people, and the general ideas of fairness of the people), it leads to a conflict, and some form of tyranny.
Keeping the hierarchy "flat" also results in some form of tyranny against the "better" ones - as naturally, those who possess the aforementioned qualities will expect to be better off than those who don't, and, in my opinion, rightly so.

Of course, I may have misunderstood what you mean by a "hierarchy".




Workers can manage their own production. That way, production is more efficient because the intent would not be to satisfy consumption and a profitable quota but to meet genuine needs.

It all sounds good in theory, but how can it be implemented in practice? You need to have some centralised body that will organise the quotas of, say, various factories - so you don't get one factory producing more nuts than another factory produces bolts.
What if someone gets this amazing idea of a new kind of device? He will have to go with this idea through all the "planning" beaurocracy, convince them why it's good etc., which will lead to corruption. And he will not get much out of it anyway, since he won't be making a profit. That leads to less ideas getting generated, and the progress slowing down.

Also, people often don't know what they want until they see it. Planning how much salami needs to be produced and how many lincolnshire sausages is going to be a tedious task. Why not just live it for the market to do, since it does that quite efficiently?

The ideas of libertarianism where written during a pre-industrial era; hence, libertarianism alone is not a good philosophy to model a contemporary society. Also, a system based on capitalist-libertarian ideas is an ELITE system that needs to be imposed upon people. Free markets were imposed upon people in Latin America, and much poverty and tyranny can be attributed to them.

How does it need to be imposed upon people, when there are minimal rules, maximal personal freedoms, and a minimalistic government that makes sure the rules are followed? It puts everyone in equal initial conditions - and the rules are not skewed for any group's benefit. How can it possibly result in tyranny? It's an oxymoron, or so it seems to me. Could you please elaborate on that?

Also. Can the society you speak of exist with less rules and lesser government to enforce them?

I have to say, I am not a huge fan of libertarianism - e.g. I believe in free education and free healthcare for everyone, to provide ideally equal opportunities for self-realization of any kid, irregardless of the background they come from. But a lot of what they propose makes sense to me.

When you are dying of your flu and there are no medicine to help you, you'll think otherwise.

If it was not for modern civilization, we would not have to deal with such a broad range of diseases which require modern medical attention in the first place.

Also property, progress, and inherent class inequalities are all just concepts which only exist in a humans mind. I cannot own anything, humans are not "improving" anything (the world doesn't look any better to me), and while different people will have different abilities this doesn't mean anyone is "better" because of their unique abilities.

All those terms only have meaning to post-civilization humans. "Better" and "worse", "good" and "bad", "mine" and "yours" are all relatively new things, and only exist to humans. Because humans didn't always depend on civilization to take care of things for them; they were self-sufficient.

Most capitalists believe thats humans are naturally competitive and at the end of the day all we care about are ourselves. I think this says more about capitalists themselves then humanity.

Instead, I think humans can naturally choose how to live. I think that we used to be self-sufficient and didn't require a society, we didn't care what others thought and were happy being as we were. As we evolved, I think society did too; but in doing so we became dependent on systems to govern us, we became greatly concerned with others opinions of us, and we are often very unhappy being whatever it is that we are while putting "happiness" on a pedestal we are unable to reach.

If it was not for modern civilization, we would not have to deal with such a broad range of diseases which require modern medical attention in the first place.

Also property, progress, and inherent class inequalities are all just concepts which only exist in a humans mind. I cannot own anything, humans are not "improving" anything (the world doesn't look any better to me), and while different people will have different abilities this doesn't mean anyone is "better" because of their unique abilities.

All those terms only have meaning to post-civilization humans. "Better" and "worse", "good" and "bad", "mine" and "yours" are all relatively new things, and only exist to humans. Because humans didn't always depend on civilization to take care of things for them; they were self-sufficient.

Most capitalists believe thats humans are naturally competitive and at the end of the day all we care about are ourselves. I think this says more about capitalists themselves then humanity.

Instead, I think humans can naturally choose how to live. I think that we used to be self-sufficient and didn't require a society, we didn't care what others thought and were happy being as we were. As we evolved, I think society did too; but in doing so we became dependent on systems to govern us, we became greatly concerned with others opinions of us, and we are often very unhappy being whatever it is that we are while putting "happiness" on a pedestal we are unable to reach.

I disagree. I think as society advanced, we acquired a lot more freedoms than we used to have.
For instance, back when we didn't have agriculture, all we did was hunt and collect. That took most of our time. We had to do it, or we would die. Not much space for freedom.
Then, we discovered agriculture. That allowed us to produce more food that we needed, and we now had a few months with hardly anything to do. But still, we were limited - we were tied to the land. Skilled people had it somewhat better at the time, with not depending on the weather, and having their income depend on their own abilities.
As technology advanced, we got more and more efficient - and now, in the West, the only reason why we work 40 hours a week with a few weeks of holiday a year is because we want quite a lot. We *don't have to* get that nice car, or that nice house, or that fancy food. But a lot of us choose to. Now we finally have the freedom to chose our lifestyle, and that freedom will keep growing as we keep advancing technologically (that's of course, unless we run down of natural resources or have some sort of natural catastrophe, but that's beside the point).

You say that we used to not depend on society as much - I disagree again. Civilisation has allowed us to become independent of other people. We don't need others to survive any more. If you mean our dependence on civilisation - well, there are numerous countries in the world with varying levels of civilisation - you're free to go to one of them and try living off the land. I don't think you'll be much happier, because once you do that, you'll get tied to the land, and your freedoms therefore will disappear.

Regarding the diseases - just compare the average lifespan of a man who lives in a civilised country, with the lifespan of a man before civilisation came along (when there were no classes, no property, etc.).

We don't really have inherent class inequalities anymore - information is accessible by mostly everyone - you can choose to use it and become whatever class you want to be. While I disagree with education being non-free, if you're keen enough but don't have the money, you can find the funding. So not sure what exactly you're not happy with there.

I think I covered most your points, sorry if my reply came out a bit messy.

Emerson's essay, "Nature":
http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/transcendentalism/authors/emerson/nature.html

The Greek philosophy of Cynicism may be the root of Zen philosophy and regards nature highly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynic

I disagree. I think as society advanced, we acquired a lot more freedoms than we used to have.
For instance, back when we didn't have agriculture, all we did was hunt and collect. That took most of our time. We had to do it, or we would die. Not much space for freedom.
Then, we discovered agriculture. That allowed us to produce more food that we needed, and we now had a few months with hardly anything to do. But still, we were limited - we were tied to the land. Skilled people had it somewhat better at the time, with not depending on the weather, and having their income depend on their own abilities.

Not much space for freedom? You had to take care of yourself or you would die: in my opinion that is real freedom.

I don't think having a lack of responsibility is true freedom. When you hand the responsibilities over, you hand over the freedom too.

Developing agriculture did not free us up from anything we were tied to. We were always free to do other things then look for food. We didn't have to eat. We could have gone hungry, for a while at least. We could even starve to death if we wanted. We always had the freedom.

Developing agriculture didn't free anything up, just made us less responsible. And now it has made us slaves. How many "modern" people could hunt meat? Find the right plants to eat? These people are dependent on civilization; they are not free.

As technology advanced, we got more and more efficient - and now, in the West, the only reason why we work 40 hours a week with a few weeks of holiday a year is because we want quite a lot. We *don't have to* get that nice car, or that nice house, or that fancy food. But a lot of us choose to. Now we finally have the freedom to chose our lifestyle, and that freedom will keep growing as we keep advancing technologically (that's of course, unless we run down of natural resources or have some sort of natural catastrophe, but that's beside the point).

What is this constant need to "keep advancing"? Where are we headed that must be so great?

"Anywhere but here." That seems to be what most people think. Most people are not content, are not happy, but they think that they're almost there. That happiness is just around the corner, just out of sight.

This is why people want so much. We cannot be happy with ourselves, with what we are and what we have. We have to look at other people, we have to compete with each other to "get ahead". This is not freedom, this is a goal that can never be reached. Because whenever you "get there", you want to go somewhere else. It is slavery to competition.

And while we slave away, all trying to be better and get ahead of each other, are things really advancing? Or are humans just telling each other things are getting better, while the world slowly gets worse and worse?

You say that we used to not depend on society as much - I disagree again. Civilisation has allowed us to become independent of other people. We don't need others to survive any more. If you mean our dependence on civilisation - well, there are numerous countries in the world with varying levels of civilisation - you're free to go to one of them and try living off the land. I don't think you'll be much happier, because once you do that, you'll get tied to the land, and your freedoms therefore will disappear.

Don't need others to survive anymore? What do you think civilization is? If there were no other people, there would be no civilization for the individual to depend on. It would just be the individual.

My happiness is not dependent on living within civilization or without it; I don't think I would be happier living without others. But I would certainly be living for myself, and I would certainly be more responsible for my own happiness. I would not be dependent on others and would consider myself to be more free then someone who depends on civilization.

Regarding the diseases - just compare the average lifespan of a man who lives in a civilised country, with the lifespan of a man before civilisation came along (when there were no classes, no property, etc.).

A shorter average lifespan doesn't translate to a life of disease. All modern diseases which require modern medical attention can be traced historically back to their introduction to humans. And all of them have been found to have been introduced after advancements in civilization, often as a result of it.

...you can choose to use it and become whatever class you want to be.

I think the different "classes" exist only in our heads.

People are just different. There is no scale to measure yourself against others, except the scale you make in your mind.

Not much space for freedom? You had to take care of yourself or you would die: in my opinion that is real freedom.

Looks like we have different ideas of freedom.

For me, freedom is having viable options. I don't *have* to go and hunt if I'm a shit hunter and I can't stand it - I can get good and make a living out of something I enjoy.

You could say, that people always have a choice. Well, if the only option I get is go hunting, or die of starvation, that's not much of a choice in my eyes. And therefore, I have more freedom now.



What is this constant need to "keep advancing"? Where are we headed that must be so great?

It's not like the advancements are made because people force themselves to do them to follow some sort of a global conspiracy plan.

There is no need to advance. Just as there is no global "good" or "bad". But - there are things that I find interesting and enjoy. Things I find fascinating. And I just do what I enjoy doing, and get good at it - and other people appreciate that, so I can make a living out of it. For some people that's playing football, for others it's science, discovering new things and being creative.

Most people don't contribute to the "advancement" anyway. But they benefit from them - not in some global way, but in their own opinion. We all die in the end, so nobody really plans where we are heading. We just do what we enjoy.


Don't need others to survive anymore? What do you think civilization is? If there were no other people, there would be no civilization for the individual to depend on. It would just be the individual.

My happiness is not dependent on living within civilization or without it; I don't think I would be happier living without others. But I would certainly be living for myself, and I would certainly be more responsible for my own happiness. I would not be dependent on others and would consider myself to be more free then someone who depends on civilization.

The civilisation is just the environment. Just like living in the forest. If a meteor hits the forest or it gets flooded, everything there gets fucked anyway.


I think the different "classes" exist only in our heads.

People are just different. There is no scale to measure yourself against others, except the scale you make in your mind.

Agree on this.

Looks like we have different ideas of freedom.

For me, freedom is having viable options. I don't *have* to go and hunt if I'm a shit hunter and I can't stand it - I can get good and make a living out of something I enjoy.

You could say, that people always have a choice. Well, if the only option I get is go hunting, or die of starvation, that's not much of a choice in my eyes. And therefore, I have more freedom now.

Yes, we do have different opinions. Instead of more freedom, I think it's just less responsibility. As long as you can manage some sort of income, you can afford to buy food. And people give money away for nothing at all.

I do not think it is freedom because the individual living within a civilized society is not independent. Modern man depends on the comforts of modern civilization to acquire food. If the civilization were to fall apart, he would lots of trouble trying to find food since he is not independent in that way.

A man could hand over the food gathering responsibility to his buddy if he's a shitty hunter and can't stand it. But then he is dependent on his buddy for food. And if something were to happen to his buddy, this man would have lots of trouble trying to find food. I do not think this is freedom.

It's not like the advancements are made because people force themselves to do them to follow some sort of a global conspiracy plan.

There is no need to advance. Just as there is no global "good" or "bad". But - there are things that I find interesting and enjoy. Things I find fascinating. And I just do what I enjoy doing, and get good at it - and other people appreciate that, so I can make a living out of it. For some people that's playing football, for others it's science, discovering new things and being creative.

Most people don't contribute to the "advancement" anyway. But they benefit from them - not in some global way, but in their own opinion. We all die in the end, so nobody really plans where we are heading. We just do what we enjoy.

Yes, shit just happens, and when we "benefit" from it thats great.

I think we need to take a look at how we are living though. To consider living for nature instead of to concur it. To consider others instead of ourselves.

I don't think that society and civilization have to be inherently bad. But I think the way ours is operating is conflicting with the rest of the world. I think society helps people in a lot of ways, but it can also hurt people in many ways. Especially when the main philosophy considers humans to be all at each others throats, a war of all against all.

The civilisation is just the environment. Just like living in the forest. If a meteor hits the forest or it gets flooded, everything there gets fucked anyway.

Alright.

And the people who make up civilization are all dependent on each other to get by. The truly free are the independent.

.....

What I find amazing is the effort you put into your thoughts and opinions, considering your belief that everything you just said cannot be true, because according to you truth is imaginary/impossible.

SO, do you lack conviction in your firmly espoused beliefs about truth, or do you enjoy wasting your time?

For instance, back when we didn't have agriculture, all we did was hunt and collect. That took most of our time. We had to do it, or we would die. Not much space for freedom.



Might want to check back on those sources. Native Americans would usually have a 20 hour work week of hunting/gathering. This left them a lot of leisure time, time to socialize and make board games that we still play today. They were more free. Way too many people in this country today are bound by a 40+ hr work week with a job they hate. That is not freedom.
The freedom to buy a car still is not as free as the native americans. You have to rely on others to make the car and sell it, you are tied down with your job in order to get the car, and you probably will use that car to drive back to the job you have to make more money to buy more useless shit. This is not freedom. This is just being a part of modern Western culture.

Yes, we do have different opinions. Instead of more freedom, I think it's just less responsibility. As long as you can manage some sort of income, you can afford to buy food. And people give money away for nothing at all.

I do not think it is freedom because the individual living within a civilized society is not independent. Modern man depends on the comforts of modern civilization to acquire food. If the civilization were to fall apart, he would lots of trouble trying to find food since he is not independent in that way.

A man could hand over the food gathering responsibility to his buddy if he's a shitty hunter and can't stand it. But then he is dependent on his buddy for food. And if something were to happen to his buddy, this man would have lots of trouble trying to find food. I do not think this is freedom.



Yes, shit just happens, and when we "benefit" from it thats great.

I think we need to take a look at how we are living though. To consider living for nature instead of to concur it. To consider others instead of ourselves.

I don't think that society and civilization have to be inherently bad. But I think the way ours is operating is conflicting with the rest of the world. I think society helps people in a lot of ways, but it can also hurt people in many ways. Especially when the main philosophy considers humans to be all at each others throats, a war of all against all.



Alright.

And the people who make up civilization are all dependent on each other to get by. The truly free are the independent.

Ever read the correspondence between Freud and Einstein concerning the League of Nations?

Google it if you haven't.

To the OP.

Cynic or Stoic?

Because I hear ancient Hellenistic philosophy in what you write.

To the OP.

Cynic or Stoic?

Because I hear ancient Hellenistic philosophy in what you write.


I agree with the Cynic's philosophy entirely, that one needs to relieve themselves of everything and live simply in order to find truth. Being completely yourself, without any sort of influence from society and to live in nature and survive off what nature provides is my understanding. It just seems impossibly hard to accomplish this; to rid oneself of everything, to become the anti society. Their idea is extreme in these times and a bit tough to follow (I'm on a computer right now).

For my shallow understanding of the Stoics, I agree that the brain can reason truth, but to find that would one need to start from scratch? Like the Cynic.

My ideas and beliefs are expanding and changing due to this thread. Thank you all

What I find amazing is the effort you put into your thoughts and opinions, considering your belief that everything you just said cannot be true, because according to you truth is imaginary/impossible.

SO, do you lack conviction in your firmly espoused beliefs about truth, or do you enjoy wasting your time?

I enjoy discussing these things.

So by nature, you don't mean the natural world, but rather physical spots on earth where there are few other humans or organized society?? Seems like you are really limiting yourself in where and how to find truth.

If you've ever simply sat in a forest with no one but yourself, you'll see the difference between a physical spot on earth with no humans in comparison to los angeles.

nature is derived from God whilst human creations are artificial- the antithesis of natural.

That is why nature= truth because god=truth

nature is derived from God whilst human creations are artificial- the antithesis of natural.

That is why nature= truth because god=truth

If humans are deterministic, then human creations are natural as well.

If humans are deterministic, then human creations are natural as well.

Everything is natural.

That doesn't mean civilization isn't upsetting the balance.

Everything is natural.

That doesn't mean civilization isn't upsetting the balance.

Was there balance in the first place?

Surely, if there was balance, evolution wouldn't have been happening?

Was there balance when dinosaurs were roaming the Earth? Did they die out because the balance got broken? Did them dying out break the balance?

In short, define balance. :)

Was there balance in the first place?

Surely, if there was balance, evolution wouldn't have been happening?

Was there balance when dinosaurs were roaming the Earth? Did they die out because the balance got broken? Did them dying out break the balance?

In short, define balance. :)

Yes there was balance.

Evolution doesn't mean there is not a balance.

Species dying doesn't mean there is not a balance.

Humans upset the balance when we began to dominate over other forms of life. We are the only things that do this. This imbalance is making the world shittier. And it is creating new diseases to help get rid of us all the time.

In other words, the balance is trying to maintain itself.

Yes there was balance.


In other words, the balance is trying to maintain itself.

Yes, however if balance is perfect nothing moves. Is it not the tension between diametrically positioned opposites that causes a need for balance? If this tension were perfectly balanced would there be any movement/life at all?

nature is derived from God whilst human creations are artificial- the antithesis of natural.

That is why nature= truth because god=truth

Your statement about human creations, antithesis of natural, etc. does not lend itself to your conclusion in any way shape or form. You babbled some shit, and asserted your conclusion, and pretended they were somehow linked.

This is quite simply not the case.

As to the conclusion you backed with nonsense:

Nature being true does not depend on a God, or on that God being truth.

-------

;)

Yes, however if balance is perfect nothing moves. Is it not the tension between diametrically positioned opposites that causes a need for balance? If this tension were perfectly balanced would there be any movement/life at all?

The flow of change is the balance constantly attempting to correct itself. I don't intend to suggest there was some time in the past or future where all things are perfectly balanced and nothing happens at all; but all things work off of each other and are dependent on each other.

Humans are greatly tipping the balance by dominating over other forms of life. We are over populating. And nature is attempting to keep things balanced by throwing worse and worse diseases at us.

Nature being true does not depend on a God, or on that God being truth.

As far as either of you know. ;)

Simply because he may not be able to explain the logic behind his conclusion does not necessarily mean his conclusion is not reasonable, however.

As far as you know, nature very well may depend on God. Whatever that means. Some people might think they're sort of the same.

nature is derived from God whilst human creations are artificial- the antithesis of natural.

That is why nature= truth because god=truth

That is what I was trying to say when I started this thread! Thank you killthewhiteman

Nature being true does not depend on a God, or on that God being truth.

-------

;)


But don't you see? Nature is the God, God is nature. The natural is the higher being

Your statement about human creations, antithesis of natural, etc. does not lend itself to your conclusion in any way shape or form. You babbled some shit, and asserted your conclusion, and pretended they were somehow linked.

This is quite simply not the case.

As to the conclusion you backed with nonsense:

Nature being true does not depend on a God, or on that God being truth.

-------

;)

Your counter -argument is very ambiguous- you might understand what bullshit, babbled shit and nonsense mean, but i dont, at least not in context to what i am saying.

If you want me to understand why my conclusion is wrong, your going to have to go further than saying "that is bullshit".

Youre always telling me and others to be more specific in our arguments and show our justifications, why dont you actually do it when you de-constructing an argument?

my ontology in my opinion is very well justified, and spirituality is only a small part of it.

Youre always telling me and others to be more specific in our arguments and show our justifications, why dont you actually do it when you de-constructing an argument?

That is why nature= truth because god=truth

You assert nature = truth, because God = truth.

In syllogistic form...

P1 God creates nature
P2 God = truth

C1 nature = truth

Premise one is in question. Please provide me evidence that God created nature. This will first require evidence for God. If you cannot elaborate on this initial premise, then it is not considered valid, and your conclusion is not considered valid.

So your conclusion cannot be considered a valid conclusion.

I strongly believe that nature is the truth for all life and wonder why there is no longer a functioning religion on it?

Materialism and stories are not the answers. One can find themselves in nature, live and survive. it is all one needs. it is the truth of which our society rejects and harms.

I believe nature will provide you with anything you need or want in life. Pot being an example.