diff options
Diffstat (limited to '')
14 files changed, 322 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/content/theses/metaphysical/_index.md b/content/theses/metaphysical/_index.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..83aae99 --- /dev/null +++ b/content/theses/metaphysical/_index.md @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +--- +title: metaphysical +weight: 50 +bookCollapseSection: true +--- diff --git a/content/theses/metaphysical/hyperlogical/_index.md b/content/theses/metaphysical/hyperlogical/_index.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..160f58f --- /dev/null +++ b/content/theses/metaphysical/hyperlogical/_index.md @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +--- +title: hyperlogical +weight: 10 +bookCollapseSection: true +--- diff --git a/content/theses/metaphysical/hyperlogical/axioms.md b/content/theses/metaphysical/hyperlogical/axioms.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f99d24c --- /dev/null +++ b/content/theses/metaphysical/hyperlogical/axioms.md @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@ +--- +title: axioms +weight: 1 +--- + +## the nature of logic + +the words "logic" and "knowledge" are often connected in the minds of humans. in the sciences, logic is used religiously, in an attempt to obtain knowledge, in the same way that it is used in religions. + +in truth, logic is unable to lead to complete, general knowledge inside of a system, which fully describes the truth. + +every logical system, by definition, must exist within some constraints, to prevent it from collapsing onto itself, and these constraints must be considered true and fixed, without the need of proof, since otherwise the initial system should have to begin under new, different, unalterable truths. + +such truths, which can define a logical system on their own, are called *axioms*. + +the need for axioms is simultaneously the strength and weakness of logic. on the one hand, through well defined axioms, one can fully comprehend the system under study, while on the other, axioms are a poison in the minds of humans, since humans will inevitably use them and will define them in systems where logic is unable to work. + +one of these systems is reality. + +it is undeniable that we now know more about the world we live in than our ancestors, but this knowledge is superficial. + +the proof for that statement is simple. if someone asks an authoritative figure in physics a simple question such as "what is a magnet? how do magnets work?" they will receive many plausible answers, none of which will truly satisfy the responder, even if they satisfy the questioner. the responder knows that the provided answers are nothing but approximations of the truth, each varying in complexity, with some being closer to reality than others, but none of them being the actual truth of the matter. + +at the same time there are a lot of zealously religious persons, that neither know the axiomatic system nor the knowledge base of the system, that stand for scientific truth, without understanding that in essence, they make a conscious choice to **believe** in its truth. + +these people have, therefore, as an axiomatic system for their personal truth the words of scientists, not knowing that with this choice, they are similar to any other religious group that exists in our time. + +to paraphrase a quote + +> are you not a hypocrite? +> +> do you not trust the chemicals in your brain to tell you that they are chemicals? +> +> all knowledge ultimately comes from that which is unprovable. +> +> will you fight? or will you perish like a dog? + +given then that one can never know the truth *a priori*, and all axiomatic systems are unable to describe the entirety of reality, what can one do? + +the only way that exists is faith, which is the principal decision one makes before even choosing an axiomatic system, and which occurs due to the fact that, before you can study the system, you need to belive that it is well defined and founded, and also that to some extent it is capable of representing the truth. + +## the failure of logic + +to conclude the discussion on logic, i would like to examine in depth the propagation of knowledge, in order to present the greatest result; the fact that most appeals to logic are themselves a logical fallacy. + +logical fallacies are, like all named things, characterizations; and they grant a person the ability to understand if a proposition is logically consistent in the broader system of an axiomatic system. + +the fallacy that is most worth discussing here is the one committed when appealing to an authority, which should not and cannot stand as a logical argument. this is because every authoritative figure, being human, has the capacity to make mistakes, or to not express themselves in a perfect manner, or to even act maliciously. at the same time, every individual appealing to said authority might have misunderstood the content of the argument, or act maliciously for personal benefit. + +besides, such techniques have been used countless times throughout history, in order to convince and manipulate individuals to surrender their liberties, their properties and themselves to others. + +this is the main argument used by the supporters of logic; in favour of it, and against other religions. + +nevertheless, logic itself not only appeals to authority, but this fallacy is necessary for it's continued existence and propagation. + +the evolution and spread of logical ideas is based on continuity. every new generation receives scientific knowledge, folklore, theology, and using these as a foundation is able to expand the collective understanding of the world. through this action, humanity does not need to start from zero, but rather they only have to rely on the authoritative guidance of the people before themselves to advance. + +it is this very act however that, according to logic itself as born by this very process, is fallacious. + +even worse, the very act of propagating knowledge, as well as any form of communication, must appeal to an authority, for why else would a person communicate unless they felt like they had something to say. + +under this realization, logic is incapable of logically leading an individual towards the truth, except for possibly a single path. + +this path demands for each and every individual to have a non-finite time, so that they may explore truth on their own, without any prior knowledge, using only their own internalized logic and deriving the truth themselves, as they understand it, using a series of logical arguments. knowledge earned in this manner asks of the individual to verify the claims made along the way themselves, which seemingly leads, finally, the individual to the truth. + +i say 'possibly' a single path, and 'seemingly' leads to the truth, because even in this scenario appealing to authority is unavoidable; for does a person not have to trust themselves that the knowledge they have is valid? do they not have to rely on themselves as an authoritative figure to explore past the beginning of their reason? + +alas, this is the greatest and most subtle flaw of logic; that even in the abscence of others, you need to have faith, at minimum to yourself. + diff --git a/content/theses/metaphysical/hyperlogical/ethics.md b/content/theses/metaphysical/hyperlogical/ethics.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..28d00d4 --- /dev/null +++ b/content/theses/metaphysical/hyperlogical/ethics.md @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ +--- +title: ethical +weights: 3 +--- + +having defined free will, i can now discuss about the ethical. + +before i do so, i first want to explain in depth why free will is a necessity for ethics to exist. + +assuming a system with either only determinism, only random outcomes, or a combination of both, there is no adequate mechanism of choice, for there to be a capacity to commit an action. there is no possible way to define a person as anything more than a process that acts as an input/output method, much like a rock, or a drop of water. these objects, bereft of agency as they are, are unable to make a decision, and so do not deserve to be morally labelled. for what does it mean for a stone to be immoral or unethical? should we accuse water of falling too harshly when rain turns to hail? no, for there to be an ethical consideration, the subject must uniquelly be able to make a choice, and to act based of *its own volition*. for ethics to exist, free will must exist. + +there have been many and there will be many more attemps to define ethics and morality in an objective sense, however most fail due to their flawed attempts to define good and evil in an objective manner, which requires an objective arbiter who decide which acts are good and which acts are evil, and hand out reward and punishment respectively. + +the above necessity forms the basis of many modern religions. catholics, protestants, muslims and jews have a clear seperation of a heaven and a hell, where people are sorted into based on merit (some catholics also admit into their faith the notion of a purgatory. protestants don't form a cohesive, centralised group, and are therefore inconsistent. these are discussions for another time.). tibetan buddhism seperates reality into seperate levels, with the human level being the 'ideal', neutral point, and reincarnation moving the individual up or down the levels based on the merit of the last life, with the capacity to remove oneself from the cycle and join the buddhas. hinduism teaches a similar idea, that one reincarnates as a being of lower or higher 'standing' depending on their behaviour in the past life, without necessarily making a distinction of different tiers of existence, but rather of quality of being, again with the capacity of breaking the cycle of reincarnation and liberating the self (liberating implies that the individual is trapped in "earthly shakles" (the body) which is also a position taken by the neoplatonists. this is also a discussion for another time.). + +all of this to say that throughout history, the prevalent mode of defining an ethic was by defining 'good' as something that brought one closer to 'the divine' and 'evil' something that had the opposite effect. this obviously is deeply flawed. not only do you need to ignore the underlying circular reasoning of "good is defined as not being evil and evil is defined as not being good", but you also need to define what and why the divine considers it to be so, which varies amongst cultures and locations. an example of this is that various mesopotamian civilisations, most notably the phoenicians, considered it moral and good to sacrifice infants to their deities, most prominently baal, which the romans of the same time period considered to be a barbarous atrocity. another example of the dynamic and therefore subjective nature of this type of ethics is the fact that the arbitrary concepts of good and evil in the current era, with the various ideas and practices that are currently tolerated by the majority of the population, vary wildly from the same concepts of good and evil from a few decades ago. + +this does not imply that ethics are destined to be subjective, or that morality cannot exist, but rather it necessitates the foundation of a new concept of ethics. + +a friend of mine asked me to think of this as a person placing their hand in of an open flame. irregardless of any subjective pleasure or displeasure one might derive from the event, there is an objective process that happens, the hand burning, and the natural response to this which is to pull the hand from the flame. exactly because of the existance of a free will and a capacity to choose, one might choose to maintain their hand in the flame, or remove it from it. therefore, one can define as a good thing to <u>*choose*</u> to remove their hand from the process. while it may or may not be subjectively good for the person, there is an objective process, the burning of the hand, that damages the individual, and the subsequent *choice* to stop or continue or stop this process. this is the objective basis for ethics. + +since the above holds only for the individual, we must extend this to interpersonal relationships. such a task is easy; knowingly putting another person's hand in the flame, or leading them to do so, counts as an unethical action. of importance is to note that the action is unethical, not the person. this is so because a person has the capacity to act in both an ethically good and an ethically bad manner. at the same time, a person might regret their past actions and seek forgiveness; this cannot be seen as anything but atonement, and therefore since a person has the ability to regret, there can not be a universal, permanent ethical alignment of the individual, at least up to and until the point of death. + +because of the effective societal pressure in interhuman interactions, there is an additional claim concerning objectively ethical actions. any attempt to nonconsensually interact with a person, violating their capacity to voluntarily engage, can be labeled as a malicious act; even if the person acts unknowingly, they have deprived the other indeividual of their free will and have therefore commited a bad act. diff --git a/content/theses/metaphysical/hyperlogical/free-will.md b/content/theses/metaphysical/hyperlogical/free-will.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9e31b47 --- /dev/null +++ b/content/theses/metaphysical/hyperlogical/free-will.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +--- +title: free will +weight: 2 +--- + +## the existence of free will + +in order to define and then converse on ideas relating to free will, one must first convince themselves on its existence. truthfully, one can simply make a definition, as well as talk about the emergent system much like any other metaphysical structure, but there is merit in being able to argue for its existence. + +on this matter, there are many different arguments, however i will focus on the three that i find the strongest; this does not mean that one can prove existence, but these seem to strongly suggest and support that free will is indeed part of reality. + +the first argument has to do with the simplicity of the system, and involves creating a system in which free will is absent, which makes said system much more complex and obtuse. this, because one must explain why and how the constructs (since we don't talk about living things if free will is absent, but mere constructs) came to be, as one might observe them. as a very good friend mentioned, without free will persons are but functions, receiving an input and producing an output. however, "I" (a concept that does not exist without free will) can both observe, and change the "output" before it is ever expressed, which is easier explained with free will than without. + +the second argument is concerned with aesthetics, and the relation between the nature of beauty, and that of truth. in due time these will be expanded upon, but for now one may use the idea of "beauty is truth" as is. + +the second argument thus is as follows; it is much more beautiful for there to be free will, than for there to not be. + +obviously such a statement is extremely subjective, but such a statement is true for the totality of knowledge. unfortunately the nature of communication makes it impossible to describe beauty and sentiment, so i choose not to expand on this argument. + +finally, we can simply make an admission, without any extra argumentation. besides, it is obvious that there is no need for a person to justify or rationalize every aspect of their faith, nor are they obligated to answer to anybody except for themselves. it is therefore possible, and maybe even proper, for someone to define the existence of free will axiomatically, ignoring any other argument for or against it. + + +## defining free will + +if we accept the idea of free will existing, we should be able to define it, in order to be able to self reference and call upon to make use of this idea. this also helps in clarifying the meaning, which in everyday speech is muddled, much like most of language, due to the nature of communication (which is a discussion for a later time.). + +alongside free will, there are two more modes of behaviour in nature, determinism and pure randomness. discussing these first is necessary to properly define free will, since these are directly observable in the outside world; free will is only directly observable in the inner state of the self, with the admission that others behave similarly. + +the first term we will explore is determinism, the idea that things in nature behave in a predefined, preordained way. this mode of action is generally linked with non sentient or better yet non living things, such as rocks, metals, everyday objects that we make use of etc. by claiming that they move deterministically, we claim that there is, theoretically if not literally, a way by which we can obtain every single bit of information about the past and the future of the object under study, subject to an adequate amount of information about the current state. here one can imply the existence of a perfect measurement device, that can give accurate measurements up to any level of significance one might care about. this does not guarantee absolute and complete knowledge of a system, but rather guarantees that the object in question behaves predictably, under a known or unknown set of laws, physical in nature. this means that a deterministic object cannot operate on its own, as it is fully under the influence and flow of the external world. + +true randomness is the exact opposite. true randomness implies that under any circumstances, there does not exist a mechanism or set of predefined laws that we can use to guarantee that the outcome will be aligned with any prediction one might make. in this way, true randomness can only be partially predicted with the use of mechanisms that predict expected, or average behaviours, without the possibility to definitively correctly guess a single outcome. as a truly random behaviour cannot be dictated by external factors, since it would be just an extremely complex deterministic system, true randomness is not dictated by any factors. + +both of the above mechanisms deprive rather than provide a mechanism that allows for an individual to be influenced by their own inner state. since deterministic behaviour has a set output for a given input, and random behaviour is nonsensical by definition, there needs to be a mechanism by which the person can, by observing and acting on themselves, change and manipulate a behaviour or outcome. + +this mechanism is free will. + diff --git a/content/theses/metaphysical/interpersonal/_index.md b/content/theses/metaphysical/interpersonal/_index.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2df53ec --- /dev/null +++ b/content/theses/metaphysical/interpersonal/_index.md @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +--- +title: interpersonal +weight: 20 +bookCollapseSection: true +--- diff --git a/content/theses/metaphysical/interpersonal/abilities.md b/content/theses/metaphysical/interpersonal/abilities.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..fbb8d48 --- /dev/null +++ b/content/theses/metaphysical/interpersonal/abilities.md @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +--- +title: the abilities of humans +weight: 100 +--- + +## free body +If one is to imagine an individual, possessing free will, alone, one can think of how said individual might operate, and what abilities the individual might have. + +It is obvious that if this individual is alone, then they have a few abilities, or capacities; they have the capacity to exist (i.e. to be alive), they have the capacity to move, and they have the capacity to use their environment to their advantage. + +These, one might claim to be "rights" or "liberties", granted by a higher authority such as a deity, or nature itself, or maybe derived from logic, but they are merely the consequences of existence, presupposing, as always, the existence of free will. Insofar as a person exists, they have these capacities and might choose to use them, along with their skills, acquired or otherwise, to improve their life. + +## effective potentials +The moment that another human, or any other being exists, there is a effective, implicit interaction between the two which limits this freedom. Suddenly there is a question of "am I allowed to go there?", or "If I approach this other entity, how will it react to my action?". All of these hold, both in the frame of cooperation, either in sharing a common space, commonly available food, etc, or in the frame of antagonization, perhaps for the same resources. This simple effect acts as a restrictive force is society, and in this way one can see that even the smallest collection of humans can never be comprised of truly free individuals, nor can this society itself be truly free. + +Once more than two individuals coexist, there are more interactions, which introduce further restrictions on the capacities of the individuals to act on their own volition, and at some point there is a shift of focus from the actions of the individual on others, to the actions of others on the individual. + +Truly, the complexity of large societies does not allow each person to consider what is of the others, in order to restrict himself, but it pushes the person to consider what is their own, so they may restrict the others. This way, the metaphysical entity that is society, gains the ability to define the liberties of the individual, and set a mode of operations for the members of said society which diverges from the notion of "What is not forbidden is permitted" and converges to the notion of "What is not permitted is forbidden". Under this scope, the larger the society, the more imposing and authoritative it becomes, not out of any amlice, but out of necessity. + + diff --git a/content/theses/metaphysical/interpersonal/self-made-hell.md b/content/theses/metaphysical/interpersonal/self-made-hell.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..67faa4a --- /dev/null +++ b/content/theses/metaphysical/interpersonal/self-made-hell.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +--- +title: self-made hell +weight: 20 +--- + +A couple of friends and I know a couple of other people, with whom they used to hang out, that loved to complain about their lives. + +They themselves were perfect. They did no wrong, they told no lie, they did their work as they should, they loved correctly; the only problem was other people, who used and abused them to their detriment, and who wouldn't understand the inconvinience or annoyance, or difficulty that they caused to our acquaintances' lives. + +Every so often, they would drop by, meet up with us and complain about how unbearable their life was, because of the other people. At some point one of them told us how they accidentally mistreated one of their coworkers and how now their coworker mistreated them back; I asked if they apologised, and their response was somethin akin to "No, and I don't plan to, because she has been annoying to me from the beginning." + +Nevermind the fact that it's not a competition of who mistreated who first, this anger that arose, and the refusal to apologise, as well as the ensuing rant, reminded me of an anecdote that exists in Orthodoxy. + +> One day, an old man showed up to a monastery. He approached a monk and started crying. +> "I cannot be saved. What I have done is unforgivable. I am eternally damned for what I have done." +> The monk asked what the sin was and tried to explain to him that nothing is unforgivable, and that everything can be forgiven. +> "It doesn't matter what I did, it's unforgivable, there is no way for me to be saved." +> This went on for a couple of days; the man would show up, cry about his unforgivable sin, and leave. +> One night the monk prayed for guidance on what to do, and an angel appeared before him. +> "This old man is Satan. He will come to you again tomorrow. Tell him that he has to ask for forgiveness." +> As the angel foretold, the next day the old man showed up once again at the monastery crying about his misfortune. +> "Have you tried asking God for forgiveness?", the monk asked. +> "ASK FOR FORGIVENESS? WHY SHOULD I ASK FOR FORGIVENESS? HE SHOULD APOLOGISE INSTEAD!" the old man shouted and left. + +There are two layers to this story, as there are also two layers in understanding what our friend, as well as other people that behave in the same way, go through. + +The first and simplest layer is egoism. The person refuses to apologise out of pride; must like the devil refuses to apologise for his hubris, so do these people refuse to apologise until apologised to first. + +To their understanding, they are not at wrong. The other person has clearly mistreated them, and their "tantrum" is a result of built up oppression, so it is justified and moral, and hence they refuse to apologise. At least that's their self-justification for acting as they did. + +The second layer is a lack of self-realisation. To explain what I mean, let's go back to the friend who was complaining about life. After asking them if they apologised and the aforementioned refusal, in order to cope with the idea that they are not in the wrong, they started explaining all the ways that the other person had mistreated them. + +What became obvious to me however, was that it was a self-imposed mistreatment. The person was rambling on about how they presented themselves as a person to be relied upon, only to complain about how the other person was relying upon them. They didn't set or show or communicate any boundaries, yet they were complaining that nobody respected them. Not only that, but their refusal to communicate any boundaries reinforced the other person's behaviour. Assuming that the other person didn't want to take advantage of them, they wouldn't know that they were, and this lack of negative reaction built an implied dependence. + +In a sense, just like the devil, they were in a hell of their own making. They deserve to be there, not because they are evil (nobody is evil, not even the devil), but because they refuse to acknowledge their contribution to their situation. They created the hell they are in, and rather than make any attempt to escape it, they yell about how much it burns. + +Most people will be this person unwillingly at least once in their lives. I have been this person, some of my friends have been this person; everybody can be saved from hell as long as they want to and try to. It takes effort, and faith, but it's always a choice. diff --git a/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/_index.md b/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/_index.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..29b0da1 --- /dev/null +++ b/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/_index.md @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +--- +title: religious +weight: 30 +bookCollapseSection: true +--- diff --git a/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/demonology.md b/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/demonology.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7ded6cd --- /dev/null +++ b/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/demonology.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +--- +title: demonology +weight: 150 +--- + +Satan and the rest of the demons are truly the most tragic beings in existence. + +The reason I say this is because they are the most powerful deceivers to ever exist, deceiving themselves and being in an eternal state where, even though they *feel* they made the wrong choice, they are so prideful, so invested in their belief, that to acknowledge the truth is impossible. + +Their choice is that of self-deification. + +To explain that we need to go back. + +In the original Scriptures, Satan appears as one of the Archangels, called Lucifer, the Bringer of Light, the Dawn, until his rebellion against God. + +Most cultures display this act of rebellion as an act of attempted liberation. "God imposes His will on the world, but Lucifer refused to submit. He was therefore cast away by God and punished by Him to eternal damnation." + +The truth however is different; Lucifer, Satan, did not rebel against "God and his order", but rather against his own nature, as a being *created* by God. His rebellion was an attempt to become like God, to become uncreated (*aktistos*), and to be a God himself. + +This is impossible. It is impossible for a created thing (*ktisto*) to become uncreated (*aktisto*). There is no way to trascend the boundary --- something finite cannot become infinite, something caused cannot become the Uncaused Cause, and this ontological limitation is the cause of the eternal damnation. + +For Satan was not "arrested", nor was he "locked away in hell as a prisoner". He is a prisoner of his own self, tormented by his own delusion of grandeur. He refuses to acknowledge the ontological distinction, and is therefore eternally damned by himself. Where God is, he cannot be, because the truth is too much to bear. God is infinite, Satan is finite. + +In this sense it is his ego that holds him a prisoner in his own hell, which is his own head. In truth it is extremely easy to "escape". The only necessity is to acknowledge his own true nature; a being *created* by God. His pride and ego however, ensure that he is always a prisoner. + +In this self-delusion of self-deification, we can see that Satan is not evil in the sense of him wanting to cause damage. He is evil because in his delusion, he is trying to convince other he is right; he believes that through worship and power he might finally achieve self-deification and reach the status of God; in his own head he *might just become uncreated*. + +Hell therefore is not a place, nor a prison where "evil people go", it is a state of the spirit, a lack of connection with the ontological source, which is God. + +This is also why Satan, or any of his followers (ie creatures with their own egos and pride, convinced that they can achieve self-deification), retreat in the light of Truth; it is why when they whisper in your ear intrusive thoughts you can easily get rid of them by laughing at them, or by shooing them away like flies. If you treat them more than what they are, for example as powerful entities, you grant them power and influence over you. + +The other causes of demons running away, prayer and forgiveness, are also in the same vein. Prayer works for the simple fact that you call upon the cause of their self-hatred and self-imposed hell for help. Forgiveness is their worst situation. Their ego and pride would never let them admit to themselves that they are wrong, as if they are wrong they must correct themselves, which is antethical to their entire existence. Forgiveness therefore is poison to them. To show them love and understanding is to drive them away, which is sad, because in true forgiveness they could be saved. + +All they have to do is apologise. + + diff --git a/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/desirelessness.md b/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/desirelessness.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..381ac08 --- /dev/null +++ b/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/desirelessness.md @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ +--- +title: desirelessness +weight: 200 +draft: true +--- + +There are many religious groups and subgroups[^1] that teach that the ultimate state of existence is desirelessness. They promote the idea that the physical reality is temporary and ephemeral, and further underline the idea of *escape*; that our metaphysical aspects, such as our soul is inherently superior to our "flesh prison" (our body), and that therefore we need to focus our attempts on liberation. + +On this, they attempt to reach a logical conclusion; to have a physical presence means to be a prisoner of physical reality and therefore to suffer. In this view, the end goal of religion is to reach a point of spiritual realisation, such that you *reject* your physical presence; you ascend to a purely spiritual plain of existence. + +This rejection of the physical self materialises as a drive to reject the physical in general. The physical body *desires*, and to act on your desires means to indulge in your physical experience, which reinforces it's existence and validates it. The only way therefore to reject the physical is to abstain from desires and to reach a state of desirelessness. + +On first inspection this appears to makes sense + + + + +[^1]: A religious group is for example Sampradaya; a subgroup is Buddhism, which although is an umbrella term for different sects (Mahayana, Therevada, etc) is traditionally seen to be a subgroup of the Sampradaya group, which also includes Hinduism (Mahabharat), as well as Jain and Sikhism. Another example, in the West, is the subgroup of Catholicism, composed of many different liturgical systems and traditions, being a member of the Christianity group, which also includes Orthodoxy. diff --git a/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/dualism.md b/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/dualism.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e69de29 --- /dev/null +++ b/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/dualism.md diff --git a/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/judaism.md b/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/judaism.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..734dcd4 --- /dev/null +++ b/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/judaism.md @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +--- +title: judaism +weight: 300 +bookHidden: true +--- + +{{% hint info %}} +This page does not presuppose any assumption about the existance of Christ. +It is not a "Christianized" view on the subject of the Judaic religion, it tries to be academic. +{{% /hint %}} + +The Judaic faith calls upon and rests upon some very specific points in order to claim it's validity. + +1. That Abraham is the patriarch of all of the Jewish people, +2. That God made a covenant with Abraham, promising that his descendants would become a great nation, +3. That though Abraham's son Isaac and his lineage, down to Jacob/Israel, and his twelve sons, the tribes of Israel came into existence, and +4. That the covenant God made with Moses grants the children of Israel claim over the lands that became known as Judea. + +From these, as well as the details of the covenants that God made with His people, the ancient kingdoms of Israel to the north and of Judea to the south were formed. + +In order to go into detail about the history and ontological conclusion of the Judaic faith, we must mention that in most of the covenants, the precondition for the covenant itself was obidience and faith to God and His rules, with each new covenant within the totality of the Old Testament being an update to the previous rules[^1]. +In most cases, when evil befell on the Jews, it was because they diverged from the commandments as a society; they stopped obeying God and the laws He had given them, and so God, seeing as they didn't want to maintain their relationship with Him, withdrew. + +This is what ultimately happened to the Kingdom of Israel, the northern kingdom. The people of the Kingdom of Israel adopted the idols and gods of their neighbours, and in the process ended their covenant with God. They abandoned Him, and so when the Assyrians came He respected their choice and left them alone. As a result the ten tribes that comprised the kingdom of Israel were exiled, spread out, and eventually they stopped existing. As the tribes forgot God, so too did He forget them, and as a result they ceased. + +Let us now look at the destruction of the Second Temple, and the subsequent exile of the Jews across the Roman empire. + +## the ontological end of Judaism +In the covenant between God and Moses, it was dictated that the *only* place of worship, where the Levites (men of the tribe of Levi), who God ordained as priests, could practice their religious tasks, such as the sacrifices, was the Temple. This means that in every sense, be that physical or metaphysical, the Temple *is* the ontological center of the faith. God's very presence on earth, the *Shekinah* dwelt in the Temple, and only in the Temple. + +Without the Temple, there is no Judaism, as there is no possible means with which to fulfil the conditions outlined in Mosaic Law. In an ontological sense, the Judaic faith *needs* the Temple to exist, because the Temple is the *only* place where religious ritual can take place, as ordained by God Himself. The existence of the Temple is a *necessity* for the ontological existance of the Judaic religion, as it was mandated that it would be. + +This means that the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans ended not only the Judaic religion in the physical sense of exiling the Jews across Europe, but it also ended the Judaic religion in a metaphysical and ontological sense. The Temple fell and the Judaic religion with it. There is no more Israel, no more Judea, no more the Judaic religion. + +## religious mandate +After the end of the Judaic faith in a religious sense, Rabbinic Judaism, where the Pharisees and scribes gained religious authority, became the norm. Since the Levites could not fulfil, *in every sense of the word*, their duties, the focus shifted into interpreting the pre-existing law, the Torah, however there lies an issue. + +The Levites were granted their authority by God Himself, on Mount Sinai; they were ordained by Him as His priests. + +The rabbis could not claim any such authority, as they are rabbis purely because of their mastery of the Torah, a learned skill, which means that any person, be they Jew or non-Jew, can claim the same expertise, and can even interpret the Torah more meaningfully or accurately that a rabbi. Since there is no religious authority or divine mandate, it is impossible to categorically decide which interpretation is objectively correct, and so it is impossible for a rabbi to claim any sort of religious importance. Their role is purely academic, and their authority is human. + +## the dissolution of the tribes of Judea +In the Biblical era, and until the destruction of the Second Temple, the Judaic tribes kept track of their members via records in the Temple, with the membership of each tribe passing in a patrilinear fashion. This meant that the sone of a member of the tribe of Benjamin would be of the tribe of Benjamin. + +With the destruction of the Temple, along with its records, it was only though oral tradition that the tribal lineage could be kept track of, as the tribal identity was passed from father to son. + +After the destruction, there was a shift in Judaic practice however, and the Jewish society shifted from a patriliniear to a matrilinear system. This meant that a baby would be of Jewish descent if the mother was Jewish, regardless of the father. This in turn led to the end of the last tribes of Israel since, if membership to a tribe is patrilinear, as was practised under Mosaic Law, the shift to a matrilinear system severed any connection, biological or metaphysical, to the original twelve tribes of Israel. + +All twelve tribes have ontologically ceased to exist, and so there are no more children of Jacob/Israel left, and so there is nobody to claim a continuation to the covenants of old. + +τετέλεσθαι + +[^1]: This does not imply any change in God. As the conditions under which the children of Israel found themselves at changed, so did their needs, both socially, and culturaly. For example the Levitikon talks about the life of the Jews during their exile in the desert; Deuteronomy is more about their settled life in Judea. + + diff --git a/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/legalism.md b/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/legalism.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c58d605 --- /dev/null +++ b/content/theses/metaphysical/religious/legalism.md @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +--- +title: legalism +weight: 50 +draft: true +--- + +Okay, so this is going to be a discussion in this last introduction. Last whatever. Into how I perceive theological issues. Such as God, the role of God will seem evil and all of those things. It's, you know, surface level, but like people argue about these things this topics all the time. So it's like something that I would like to have an input on. Maybe help clarify some things because I believe that the answers I found these questions are very good. And oh, sorry. And they do answer like for me, they feel the gaps. Because I have had some experience like going through different religions. I try different belief systems, I've written different books, holy books. And yeah.\n\nOkay, so first of all, this is not going to be a discussion about which God is a correct one, or which religion is a correct one. I don't care about these things. I have my answers. I'm not here to tell people, hey, your answers are correct or wrong or whatever. So, obviously, I am biased by being an Orthodox Christian, but it doesn't really matter as much. I will go into, like, hey, this religious group argues this thing to present an opinion, and then I will talk about, like, I will counter the argument. Like, for example, Protestants and Catholics and many Muslims and Jews, and there are big religious groups, many religious groups argue that, like, God is a judge figure, which I want to discuss, so I need to call, I don't want to be, like, a many religious groups who say this or that. I would like to be able to say this group or that group. Well.\n\nOkay, so the first topic I would like to talk about is the division between having three wheel as given by God versus the idea that God is a judge figure that does you all the time and that this cast and that essentially keeps track record of everything you have done and then once you die it gives present to you with what you have done so if this is true which I don't feel like it is, it contradicts the idea of three wheel in a major way because the idea of three wheel is that you can do what you want and you have authority over your life, you are the person that is in charge of your options and your opinions and your choices and having a judge walk over you and tell you, this is a good thing, this is a bad thing, it's really not in line with this idea. Having a judge over see you is more in line with you are inherently evil mode of thinking rather than you have the decision whether you want to do good or to do bad, whatever definition is, which I have given a definition, but you know, so yeah. To make a reference to the Bible, Jesus does say at a moment at a point that he alone has the authority. The Father has passed the authority to the Son to be the soul judge and that he will never use that ability. He has the ability to judge. He can if he wanted, but he does not want to judge because he does not want to enforce his authority. And his belief system is important because doing so would be contradictory to giving us the ability to choose. If he was going to enforce morality and perfection, then he might as well not have given free will in the first place. So it does not make any sense for a judge's deity to imbue creation with free will, the capacity to choose. Why would you choose? Why would you give them the option to choose when you're going to tell them if it's correct or not? Yes. You It would make a lot more sense with this in mind. It would make a lot more sense that the actual judge of the person is the person themselves. People, I notice myself feeling bad when I do something that I feel is not good for me. And there are other times where I strive to make me a decision because I don't know if it's good or not, but when I do make the decision, I feel good. And so there is this idea that when you pass to the next life, you have your judge for your actions, but the judge is yourself. You judge yourself and you nitpick every little thing that you have done throughout your entire life. And therefore, you decide your fate, which is a lot more cohesive with the idea of free will exist in us, the mode of with which humans and everything operates in general. There is an allegory, I don't know if that's an allegory, I'm metaphor, that a friend of mine has presented me with when I was going through a different philosophical aspects and questions of religion in general. He told me that in some of the fathers of the church in Orthodoxy have given examples of what it is like to be in heaven or hell to go to the bad place or the good place, essentially in any religion. And the way that he presented is the one that I'd like the most out of the ones that he has told me about is this idea that when you die, you go into a field, everybody, good or bad, or whatever goes to a field. And in front of you, the son is not the son, but it's the entirety of God, essentially, he's in the full glory of God. And so you come to that when you see that, you obviously you're overwhelmed by sentiment because it's like the, if you, the options are essentially, how do I feel when I see God in front of me? Do I feel the lose? Do I feel malicious? Do I feel hateful? If I have negative perceptions of this thing of the truth with a capital T in front of me, obviously, this, this light, this blinding light is going to burn me and it's going to hurt and it's going to torment my soul forever because I cannot stand to see God, uh, above me in the entire glory of God, essentially, whilst if you, if you accept your position, if you are humble and if you, you know that this is the, the truth essentially, except this as a truth, uh, then you are so happy, you're overwhelmed with happiness and all of the, the good feelings is the, the light is not burning you, but rather it's like, it's a, a warm spring day and you lie in the field and the sun hits you and warms you up and this, the difference between something burning you were something having a warmth that is the difference between having a help in, in, in normal looks. And it also makes sense to a huge extent why and how, like, in Orthodoxy, because in Catholicism you have the Purgatory, essentially, for light scenes, or you have the first circle of hell for people that are known, that were not religious, that didn't know, but it just so good. This implies that everybody, by default, goes to hell and therefore to some extent every human is evil, and also it implies that, like, God is the one deciding, oh, you know, their scenes weren't that bad, so let's keep them in Purgatory to clean up a bit and then they can go on to be in heaven. Which doesn't make sense, and the results are called, I remember, reading, where it was, like, if I don't believe in God, will I go to heaven or hell? Oh, you actually go to heaven because you would not have known that you were being evil, and so the other person responds and why would you tell me that? And because that implies that the knowledge of God forces you to behave in a way, if there is no enforcement of that, in reality, it's all a strict feeling, because whether you believe in God or not, you're always ending up in the same place, and therefore it is up to you to perceive the thing that you're perceiving. It's up to you to choose how you feel and how you handle yourself in front of this thing in front of you. |