Deiphilosophy

a reply to: Peeple

This is not a very friendly community, is it?

Because you love what are the words of someone who doesn't get what I mean and has taken an aggressive stance against philosophy (mine at least).

For absolutely no legitimate explainable reason. Bad reasons, maybe (most likely).

I would rather hear your thoughts than be the witness to the heiny smooching you offered up to your big brother: Darkness.

Come into the light...

As a matter of fact and for future reference, if you want to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing I really don't mind.

But you are going to have to tell me what is so wrong with or bad about it if you want me to give any consideration to your opinion.

Quote me and ask what I meant before you assume to know. Assuming has not once allowed anyone to correctly assess what I mean.

Philosophy is supposed to be vague, imo, and the whole point is to THINK about the meaning but not to assume to know what the philosopher is thinking.

It's meant to generate questions not aggression. To feed the mind.

Some are starving and not because they haven't eaten but because they can't "digest", and vomit up wisdom.

And by all means if you have a "better" philosophy or a good one you would like to share (whether or not you like mine) please do so.

But painting my thoughts with the brush of negativity only shows that you are negative, not my philosophy.

Good is my philosophy. Correctness, mercy, wisdom and the like.

So the incorrect interpretations of my thoughts and the pro judgement attitude of the aptly named BigBrotherDarkness have no place in my philosophy (that nobody is being forced to listen to btw) and that should be known.

In plain English he has made accusations that are not true and interpreted my thoughts as negatively as possible.

Thank you.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: deignostian

If you think dividing people up is a positive thing, where there is no dialog and understanding then yes I am negative to such practices... and I am happy to stand wholly alone without any group banner or standard and tell you hating individuals by group is wrong and ignorant. It's called being personally responsible no matter what any group or label you may identify with or use as an excuse to back up B.S. but hey you;re not alone millions and millions of people do this exact same thing... still doesn't make it right or justifiable.

Perhaps one day you'll see this and understand it and stop defending and rationalizing things and behaviors that are irrational.

I've a great hope that the world comes to understand this so it's not just a personal message to you btw.

Sorry [Peeple] but this is what you love?

Made up b.s. that I never said or did?

Why do you love that which is not true?

[BBDarkness]:

How have I divided anyone?

Who am I dividing?

Hate is wrong but who am I hating?

I don't identity with any group label so...

Perhaps one day you will stop hunting down people to argue with and making incorrect statements regarding what was ACTUALLY said and meant. You are dangerously close to lying.

originally posted by:

If I told you of a secret that came with riches upon riches, what would your first thought be? Gold or how to reverse the aging process maybe?

Or would you think of a place beyond this realm that was nothing but bliss, and infinite? No time and no death?

I have no such secret. But some see value in material things more than intellectual matter. Others only see this world and couldn't fathom a life beyond.

Sometimes it is not what you know that is relevant but what you desire (to know).

The reason for all is desire. Desire creates. Desire what is of Good and what is good you get Good.

Desire beyond even neutrality to the point of not good and evil, and you will get your evil.

It is not a black and white. Between Good and neutral exist degrees and shades but crossing that line is Gommorah. If you want redemption you can not look back even once or you are not going to make it. Redemption gets harder every time you try.

Is this a negative statement?

That what you desire is important? That people are desirous of different things, not everyone desires the same thing and that some desire is good and some bad?

It is not even hypothetical, is truth negative?

Sometimes. But it's better than a positive lie.

Sometimes vague philosophy is usable as a tool for psychoanalysis. Make a vague statement about good and wisdom and inevitably someone will find a way to turn it into a negative.

The absence of anything actually negative in the statement doesn't stop the negative mind from interpreting it as such.

This wasn't what I wanted to, but nevertheless has, happened.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

I am growing increasingly confused how my OP led you to infer the entirely incorrect thoughts that drew out your negative side.

I have even re re re read it to see if maybe I DID say something that warrants your responses.

But in fact I did not. We seem to even be discussing your pessimism and not my harmless philosophy.

You may be able to talk about negativity when nobody provided cause, but I am able to spot unwarranted negativity.

And those two words say everything you said in however many, say 100, words you actually used.

originally posted by: deignostian

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: deignostian
The Wise One:
Prays the needy get whats needed, without vanity.

How can you expect to ask God to change his master plan without any vanity?

From my perspective it is "How can expect Good to change... WITH vanity." Vanity and prayer are oil and water.

Or are the needy having things purposefully withheld awaiting Wise One's to ask, and it's part of the plan?

Seems that having God awaiting your instructions in either case may fall under vanity.

I disagree.

Hmmm, that seems purposefully vague.

How is the control of a deity through your words alone not considered to be thinking a little too highly of yourself?

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: deignostian

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: deignostian
The Wise One:
Prays the needy get whats needed, without vanity.

How can you expect to ask God to change his master plan without any vanity?

From my perspective it is "How you can expect Good to change... WITH vanity." Vanity and prayer are oil and water.

Or are the needy having things purposefully withheld awaiting Wise One's to ask, and it's part of the plan?

Seems that having God awaiting your instructions in either case may fall under vanity.

I disagree.

Hmmm, that seems purposefully vague.

How is the control of a deity through your words alone not considered to be thinking a little too highly of yourself?

What is it that makes you think a deity can be controlled? I don't think that.

Vagueness has a purpose, but I am not being vague in this comment. Purposefully or otherwise. It's pretty clear what I am saying.

You are going to have to explain what seems to me like an anti prayer mindset.

If you're not anti prayer then I have a question, what is your point?

I do think you can pray with vanity in your heart.

But that you can also pray without vanity, and naturally I prefer the latter.

Is that a difficult concept to fathom? Even if you don't concur it is a legitimate philosophical concept. Vanity should be absent from prayer no matter your creed and that just seems like common sense to me.

What's confusing you? I will do my best to help you understand. If you are willing to drop the odd position you have taken as an adversary of prayer that makes you think it can not be done without vanity.

Or is vain prayer acceptable to you and you are offended by my anti-vanity in prayer position?

I try not to assume. I am not perfect though so I can just try as hard as possible not to.

originally posted by: deignostian
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

If what you are praying for is not to do with self, that is not vanity. Simple.

If you are praying for the benefit of others but for vainglory...you get what I mean.

It's easy to understand, really.

It's not easy to understand at all for me.

Claiming the ability to not only control god but also have the moral superiority to tell him when he needs to help someone is completely vain.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: deignostian
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

If what you are praying for is not to do with self, that is not vanity. Simple.

If you are praying for the benefit of others but for vainglory...you get what I mean.

It's easy to understand, really.

It's not easy to understand at all for me.

Claiming the ability to not only control god

Please provide evidence that I think I can control God. I don't.

but also have the moral superiority to tell him when he needs to help someone is completely vain.

Also never claimed any type of superiority.

Are you hostile for a legitimate reason or just in general?

Prayer is a request and not an order or attempt to "control God."

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

It would be nice if you, rather than complain about the fact that you can't understand my philosophy, provide an alternative philosophy of your own. And more productive as well as less juvenile.

Your only concern seems to be expressing negative thoughts on my thoughts, which are meant to be positive. You have yet to provide one valid comment, only attempts at angrily disagreeing with me.

How can you disagree when you admit you don't understand? You can not disagree if you don't understand, unless you have foolish tendencies.

originally posted by: deignostian

What is it that makes you think a deity can be controlled? I don't think that.

Vagueness has a purpose, but I am not being vague in this comment. Purposefully or otherwise it's pretty clear what I am saying.

You are going to have to explain what seems to me like an anti prayer mindset.

If you're not anti prayer then I have a question, what is your point?

I do think you can pray with vanity in your heart.

But that you can also pray without vanity, and naturally I prefer the latter.

Is that a difficult concept to fathom? Even if you don't concur it is a legitimate philosophical concept. Vanity should be absent from prayer no matter your creed and that just seems like common sense to me.

What's confusing you? I will do my best to help you understand.

OK I'll try to answer as clearly as possible.

1. Prayer is a request for god to specifically consider you and do as you request.

2. OK, the problem is me. That's fine I'm trying to work through it.

3. My anti prayer mindset comes from disliking peoples arrogance in believing they can improve god's plan by giving him advice.

4. My point is to try and understand why my view may be wrong.

5. I think all prayer is a showing of vanity as it implies the creator not only cares what you say but will act on it.

6. I would class prayer without vanity as prayer made with the full knowledge that it won't be answered.

7. It is a difficult concept to fathom as it seems inconsistent. It's an inconsistent philosophy. Once again the point of prayer is that god will change his plan for you. Or that you can give him tips on how to help others.

I think that covers it.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: deignostian

What is it that makes you think a deity can be controlled? I don't think that.

Vagueness has a purpose, but I am not being vague in this comment. Purposefully or otherwise it's pretty clear what I am saying.

You are going to have to explain what seems to me like an anti prayer mindset.

If you're not anti prayer then I have a question, what is your point?

I do think you can pray with vanity in your heart.

But that you can also pray without vanity, and naturally I prefer the latter.

Is that a difficult concept to fathom? Even if you don't concur it is a legitimate philosophical concept. Vanity should be absent from prayer no matter your creed and that just seems like common sense to me.

What's confusing you? I will do my best to help you understand.

OK I'll try to answer as clearly as possible.

1. Prayer is a request for god to specifically consider you and do as you request.

Why did you equate it, "a request" as I put it, with attemping to control? Request or attempt to control, which is it?

2. OK, the problem is me. That's fine I'm trying to work through it.

Good idea.

3. My anti prayer mindset comes from disliking peoples arrogance in believing they can improve god's plan by giving him advice.

Requests are not advice.

4. My point is to try and understand why my view may be wrong.

5. I think all prayer is a showing of vanity as it implies the creator not only cares what you say but will act on it.

I have done a good job of explaining how this is not the case. Prayer is harmless. Give it up already.

6. I would class prayer without vanity as prayer made with the full knowledge that it won't be answered.

A bit pessimistic but OK.

7. It is a difficult concept to fathom as it seems inconsistent. It's an inconsistent philosophy. Once again the point of prayer is that god will change his plan for you. Or that you can give him tips on how to help others.

I think that covers it.

An opinion. I find no inconsistencies in it, enlighten me wise one:

How is it inconsistent? Quotes and explanations please.

originally posted by: deignostian
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

It would be nice if you, rather than complain about the fact that you can't understand my philosophy, provide an alternative philosophy of your own. And more productive as well as less juvenile.

Your only concern seems to be expressing negative thoughts on my thoughts, which are meant to be positive. You have yet to provide one valid comment, only attempts at angrily disagreeing with me.

How can you disagree when you admit you don't understand? You can not disagree if you don't understand, unless you have foolish tendencies.

I am trying to be productive. Apologies if it comes off as rude however when someone claims to have answers to big questions I think it's important to understand them. I am trying to engage in an honest discussion.

I'm not angrily disagreeing. Just rephrasing the same question until it is understood.

Once you understand and answer my question I can understand your position better.

I will probably disagree with your position and then we can discuss my philosophies. However not understanding your position and then just telling you mine seems a little disrespectful to you and your philosophies.

a reply to: deignostian

It's a very lovely community. But since you asked for it, let's have a look at what you did, shall we?

originally posted by: deignostian
The Wise One:

Never remembers the one who 'sinned' towards them.
Covets nothing, hates no one.
Prays the needy get whats needed, without vanity.
Works beneficence for the Will of Good.
Is a serpent and a dove.
Of Good conscience.

First we have The Wise One, then remembers who sinned towards them.
That's a semantic no go.
I am sensing you are referring to an "enlightened" person, not god, but it still is a bit confusing, especially the "Will of Good", because:

*God=Good*

doesn't make any sense at all and is not true. Unless you and I have very different interpretations of what good means, but if you are talking about the biblical god, or any other god, we all know this "being" has a way of destroying societies, killed his own son etc.

We are the will of the same One Will. Good wants us to be perfect. Good wants not to be feared but wishes mankind no longer stand in need of angels, prophets, saviors and myths...but to receive good directly from Good, having become worthy. And to have protection in Wisdom.

no one ever in the entire history of humanity ever spoke directly with this "one god", it's always either angels, demons, the holy ghost, or a whole pantheon of not very "good" gods.

The sin of the civilian is the sin of the "elite." Had the elite conducted themselves as Good so prescribes, the civilian would be filled with reverence for the sinless life.

buddha was elite. Not much sin to find there. And if you will one day receive your tav it will be for your actions and yours alone. What messed up logic is that? "Joe Rich did it, so I did it too."? That won't work, you are responsible for your actions, everybody else is responsible for theirs and it is nobodys but your fault if you choose to follow bad rolemodels.

Knowing Good is nothing to Good knowing you. When work does not follow knowledge no knowledge has been learned.

With this sentence you are indeed loosing me entirely. Good work as you seem to describe it comes from love not knowledge. Unless you describe love as knowledge of the heart? But then you did a horrible job in putting that in words.

When does the shadow leave the body? When there is no light! It must be the shadow is good, a representation of Good and a sign to live in the Light so you always have Good's company.

Your soul is not the shadow. And I can die in daylight. The shadows are the ones trapped in the world between. Sheol.

All Good things must be done.

That one is correct, there is nothing good unless you do it.

Happy?

originally posted by: deignostian
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Zeef:

It would be nice if you, rather than complain about the fact that you can't understand my philosophy, provide an alternative philosophy of your own. And more productive as well as less juvenile.

Your only concern seems to be expressing negative thoughts on my thoughts, which are meant to be positive. You have yet to provide one valid comment, only attempts at angrily disagreeing with me.

How can you disagree when you admit you don't understand? You can not disagree if you don't understand, unless you have foolish tendencies.

This needs repeating I see.

a reply to: Peeple

I apologize but I don't agree with you at all.

You are twisting everything I said to a negative. Originally a positive philosophical musing has been interpreted by you as something it isn't.

It is your error, and you are wrong about what you think I mean. This I know because of your comment and my intentions.

I didn't say anything offensive and your heiny smooching of Darkness aside, you are way off.

You are trying to make sense but don't do it misinterpreting metaphorical statements as literal. A symbol is not what it is said to be a symbol of.

And I am using the shadow as a symbol.

As you have no shadow in the dark, you should remain in the light.

Light being a symbol for Good.

Lol. Did I imply that the shadow was the soul?

Nope. Just symbolic meaning we should stay in the light.

A for effort though.

originally posted by: deignostian

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar


1. Prayer is a request for god to specifically consider you and do as you request.

Why did you equate it, "a request" as I put it, with attemping to control? Request or attempt to control, which is it?

OK, now we have found the point of confusion and can make some ground.

I think prayer is an attempt to persuade god. Whether I use harsher terminology like "attempt to control" or a softer term like "request" it's still an attempt at persuasion.

What terminology would you prefer me to use.

edit on 23-7-2016 by Krahzeef_Ukhar because: editing is fun

edit on 23-7-2016 by Krahzeef_Ukhar because: editing is fun

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
OK, now we have found the point of confusion and can make some ground.

I think prayer is an attempt to persuade god. Whether I use harsher terminology like "attempt to control" or a softer term like "request" it's still an attempt at persuasion.

What terminology would you prefer me to use.