Philosophy

If all things have been created in such a way that I can not be fully aware of the existance of a deity or lack thereof, than these things are not meant to be followed in any manner; yet examined through inward examination of ones self so that knowledge can be inherited at some point in the generations of mankind.

I will be straightforward with my readers: I do not follow any given religion and my beliefs are generally built off many beliefs. These beliefs include Satanism, Hinduism, Misanthropy, and everything essentially being nothingness. I like to "cross-examine" other beliefs (and even my own), and this is perhaps the primary reason I enjoy philosophy so much.

Why do I choose not to be religious? The simple answer is: because nothing is proven as a fact. Whether one believes their holy text is the final answer to life, until they can prove (without a shadow of a doubt) that their god(s) are true; than I will refuse to wander aimlessly as a sheep. If some god or deity is real, I would have him reveal himself to me in such a way that I would know for certain that he is truly, real.

Until that day (if that day ever comes!), I will continue with the same mindset I have right now: examine the world and its inhabitance with the knowledge that, at this very moment, everything is essentially nothing.

In a sense, God has always existed. From my perspective god is me, so in my own way I have created god (at least in my mind). I think this has to do with each human viewing the world from a different axis, and everything always seems to surround yourself. So, it is highly possible that a person could "invent" a god (even one such as the one(s) of a religion). With enough manipulation it is possible. A small collaboration of individuals makes these even a higher possibility. Take for example the Bible. It was written by very few individuals. It contains enough in its book that enable people to feel enlightened, empowered, saddened by humanity, and in love with God by the end of it due to what he is said to have done (sending his son and such). Now, examine how easily people latch onto books and films (among other things). Lord of the Rings is a relevant example. It was written by one man, but has been capable of reaching into so many cultures and societies due to how it was written and how it can relate to so many people (and ultimately make them feel good). Now, the Bible and Lord of the Rings are eerily similar in that they both have a built in fan base (that inevitably started with single individuals, then the public gets word of how great it is, causing so many people to fall in love). These both have been adapted (in different forms) into movies, games, video games, and even music. What is the difference? One is said to be a pathway to salvation, while the other is only intended for entertainment (and practically says that is all it is intended for). Now, what if J.R.R Tolkien inserted information in his book that could lead someone to "salvation"? Could Lord of the Rings potentially become a mass religious belief? It would be possible. You may be thinking, "this is absurd", however when you examine how cults function; it is really not that big of a stretch.

Over the past several days I have been pondering existance. Existance of everything, really. A proverb/scripture that has stood out to me since it was revealed to me (Ashes for ashes, dust to dust) has seemingly gained my interest and to some degree study. Until the past week I never really considered what these words are really saying.

If this saying is truth, than where does existance lie? If we examine the creation of anything, the question can easily be asked? Is it existance that I sit here typing this paragraph? Or is existance itself beyond life and time?

This proverb intricately exposes a "trade" between two things, that are innately the same. I was born from ash and will return to it. The question that comes to my mind is if my existance was meerly non-existance before my birth, and I exist now, will I not return to non-existance when I die?

The primary reason I am wondering this is due to the fact that I have long believed in some afterlife. Not necessarily a "heaven" or "hell", but simply existance in some other form. But, if all that was prior to my physical body was meerly nothing, will I not return to nothingness?

Another question I raise is why does it seem that my "spirit" comes with my body? I have no recollection of my spiritual existance prior to my physical attributes. Is it perhaps possible that the spirit (or mind) is the bed to which we sleep, and likewise the body stirrs the soul? Is the spirit realm so pure that we know all things, and inadvertantly are not awake to experience these things do to the fact that we know all? Is the body the means to which we can experience and begin to understand those things which we innately already understand, yet can not truly experience do to our blind awareness of all things?

If Hell exists, than I am there
Raging fire engulfing my being
I am dying,
However, death may just be life
Mirrored for me to reflect.

Words I have written some time ago. The potential of life to be completely something else, or perhaps even just an abstract concept that can not be fully explored; is very high. Philosophically speaking death is either more life or a state of non-existance in the most unexplanable concept of the word. Death is frightening, perhaps mostly because of societies perspectives on death. Christianity has defined death as either good (Heaven) or bad (Hell). Yet, stepping out of bounds of my childhood I begin to wonder, is this what death really is? Examining why ghosts still linger, even of children; sometimes in loneliness, makes me wonder. I don't deny life after death, but where will I be? What will it look like? Examining new studies that say some clinically dead people have been able to see pictures placed by doctors that could only be visible from the ceiling is alarming. Minimally, a question to ask is; when do we really die? Is it when our physical beings depart? Are our spirits truly nessled in skin and bone and blood? Or is it something else? Is death a layered process? Perhaps the easiest being now where we create our own rules and guidelines on how to live life, and then our first death comes for our bodies to decay and rot, yet we still walk this Earth? Are we not truly dead, still after mortal passing? Must our soul also be sentenced to a life such as this, only to blow away with the wind? Will I feel the wind passing through the last remains of my essence? And if so, have I truly ever lost my physical body any more than a snake sheds its skin? If death is a shedding of skin for a new body yet again, how could it really be a negative experience?

I can only speculate on the characteristics of death, but I like to do it because it is interesting to ask: where am I going to be and what is it going to be like.

These are some great books that I have personally read and enjoyed. I highly suggest them!

Classics of Western Philosophy

One Breath at a Time:
Buddhism and the Twelve Steps

The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali:
Commentary on the Raja Yoga Sutras by Sri Swami Satchidananda

Mere Christianity

Basic Writings of Existentialism
(Modern Library Classics)

Images flicker forward through corrupt, or perhaps uncorruptable minds
A pacing Christ in a cell with thorns upon his brow
A somber smile to his delight of insane Roman guards gallavanting with liquor leaking
Through absinthe canals only hallucinations can forthbring
And as a charade occupies all tense mind strings
The poltergeist-like entity unshields its lips and slowly sings
With closed eyes, or just a lack thereof, unknowingly engaging war with carnal tongues.

As dawn paces along the terra firma of mortal Crusades
And embedded stakes of upside-down crosses sheathed
Into the soil of sibilantly created pastures painted with a canvas of maniacal colors
With a single embrace between lips in holy fashion
God-Almighty himself pearing through the window pane at the dank world
Which holds catastrophe as if a dagger in a dimlit room, on a flickering vein.

Imagining now yet again innately in the mind
A functioning Earth paralyzed and baptized
With crude walking sticks poignently erected
And looming saphires gracing the tension between flooded lungs and eroding corpses
Malarial beings with a haze in their eyes
Brass chimes taking place of glass to formulate immortal destruction
Through the deception of life being given yet taken
By the ill means of continuing in light of demolition
The breaking down of the mortal body
Now deceased, yet still wandering
With closed eyes draining a chalice every night
Every moment in time as darkness is all that fills the void that once was
Perhaps, life?

I begin to wonder, why do I even bother to continue thinking about things so much? Is it of any worth to analyze the entire world and everything in it that comes before my eyes (or worse, my mind!)? I guess I would have to say yes as I continue to do it (though that doesn't make it right, I suppose). This poem I wrote as seen above is probably a good example of my thinking process. I like to rant and ramble until no end, despite my stubborn quietness. I begin to wonder (in the poem) about religion, material things, technology, life-prolonging science, and such things like this. I begin to wonder, does taking part in any of these things defeat the purpose of life in some ways? Perhaps somethings to a lesser degree and other things to a higher degree. Or do these things really increase the value of humanity? Which ultimately is "a point below zero" (Dimmu Borgir)? Are all of these things just masks to which every human these days wear over their essences? Are homeless people more intact with life as it should be known than middle-rich class people which most of us are? Is having no home, no money, no unecessary material things really so negative? To feel the warmth of the grass in Central Park in the midst of the material city?

Thats enough for today.

He surrendered graveside
To his lover's silent eyes
And he fell into an astral sleep--

These hearts are entwined
Between the river and the pine.
The mist crawls amidst their shadows
Dancing in celestial dream.

The ghastly lantern reflected in her eyes
As if some tragedy has bequeathed the morning rise
With lithe fire made of grief and cedar...
For purpose of drowning the darkened summer.

The heavens never seemed so close
As when my soul silently departed
And left ablaze my withering heart
To bare alone the naked course.

She was the star within my nightmares
To which I found peace and dream;
That guided the way for my wavoring phantom
Through the mire 'till my sight be relieved.

He surrendered graveside
To his lover's silent eyes
And he fell into an astral sleep--

These hearts are entwined
Between the river and the pine.
The mist crawls amidst their shadows
Dancing in celestial dream.

The funeral mass whispered a cruel spring
With nightfall breaking vessels upon my sea
And for mourning to drain into the winter stream...

The moonlight surrendered to the dawn
With her abandoned pyre still denying the rain;
And he still asleep beside her
Embracing her silently ...

There was no solace to be found.
No divine to bring her back to life.
Just death amidst the willows and fire,
Summoning his fragile ghost to never return to life.

And as the noose gently caressed his silhouette
Final images of winter lapsed his mind never to regret...

"The cruelty of winter shattered in the night
As I looked to heaven's gaze amidst the morning flight."

"Breath whispers in my celestial dream
Of the Summerland to which I wake.
For in finale my arms are entwined...
With her this dreamless summer's night."

This poem is no where near perfect, however it is pretty much the epitome of my soul in regards to philosophy, love, death, the ideal, and the afterlife.

The general concept is of a woman who is raped and murdered by men, and her lover comes to find her body. At the beginning of the poem she is lying in his arms, dead, and he is putting her into the grave. A long story short, he goes through the mourning process only to succumb to the uncautious desire to be with her yet again. He then commits suicide and "never regrets" it.

I was generally inspired by this concept as well as the idea of the Wiccan' Summerland. It seems like the most amazing place. The idea of death and then a brief rest in the most beautiful place imaginable, then returning to Earth (reincarnated) to repeat the cycle.

Lastly, I do not believe philosophy always has to be some complex "idea." I think many people are put off by having to think so much, but even such simple things as love and death can be very philosophical.

I hope you enjoyed this poem!

(Note: The picture on the side of this post is one for you to think about! Imagine the beautiful and the melancholy/dark coming together. That is my idea of a truly peaceful place, where all things meet for a moment. This is why suicide in my poem is not seen as a negative. In a black and white world, suicide and death are all to often seen as great "evils"; however in my mind they are renewal and life in a new way!)

So, there are alot of philosophies/theologies that exist in the world to attempt to explain some perhaps unknowable concept of the mind/spirit/soul. Not to mention the physical bodies purpose in the mix. Socrates felt that the body was pointless and willingly and happily drank poison to rid himself of it. Descartes followed the same form to a worse extent, insisting he could not be sure his body existed at all leading him to just lock himself in a room for a very long time. Satanists believe that the "spirit" is just a part of this world, and when we die it just becomes a part of the world. Satanism is surprisingly similar to many Asian religions (such as Hinduism) in that they both believe the same thing. "God" is myself. When we die, we all become "god" as we are all god. The logic of Indian philosophies breaks down to the fact that if "god" is unmeasurable and unconfined, than humans themselves can not be outside of god, and therefore we are all in essence a part of god. Fascinating, yes?

Now, amidst my dreams and chimeras of the past few weeks in light of death and recurring memories of times past I have begun considering another option. Typically a question has been asked, what are shadows? I begin to wonder in our human ignorance if shadows contain a spiritual aspect only able to be found by those who look. Do not almost all religions and belief systems (including those listed earlier) believe in some sort of attachment between the body and soul? Body and mind? It is natural and common belief that the mind is "located" in the physical brain. In such a way as this, are not shadows attached to their creators? I wander down the street and I can see my shadow, the absence of light based on my own body. And why would I limit the spirit world to just myself? Do not trees, grass, flowers, bees, insects, and such also cast shadows?

What then creates these shadows? A couple hundred years ago it was determined that the Earth was not the center of our universe. Inevitably, parents teach their kids not to be egocentric as well. If we are not the center of the universe, despite while we move as individuals we see the world from our own axis (or perspective), can it be implied that something else has to have created our spirits (if they be shadows, or if shadows meerly reflect the spirits). In natural, scientific terms one could imply that the Sun (being the scientific center of our universe) has created our spirits. The idea here is that something superior has created something insignificant in and of itself, but when combined with all the others perhaps amazing.

I dont necessarily believe this and I dont see why it couldn't be combined with other beliefs, but its just my ramble for the day.

I try to be as "philosophical" in my writings as possible. I will be writing about theological ideas from a philosophical standpoint. Today, an aspect of Christianity...

If we all step back a moment and ask questions, what do we have to lose?

Of late I have been concidering who has been more evil in the story of the Garden of Eden. Generally, everyone concludes and assumes that God Almighty is the great god that is nothing less than all goodness and justness. In that same conclusion, everyone generally also concludes that the serpent (presumably Satan) is the great evil and plague to humanity. The thoughts perculating in my mind have been, is this necessarily the case? Is this more of a gray matter than a archatypical story (a stereotypical, defined good and evil battle)? I'm leaning towards, yes.

It seems to me that God is cruel to 1. be all powerful and all loving and yet have the need to put 2. a source of all-knowledge in the midst of the people he wants to love him only to give them 3. free will which does not exist in the first place because, while freedom is there, it is deeply frowned upon by God himself. 4. The issue with God is that by creating a tree which fruit is knowledge, he is implying that knowledge is a bad thing by making it wrong for Adam and Eve to eat from the tree. I do not see how anyone could say God gives us free will and wants us to love him, when we are not free to examine other aspects of the world (when he created them in the first place!).

I feel ultimately that Adam and Eve exist in a morose Greek tragedy. It seems their motivation is child-like (which later the bible itself calls people to be like) and Eve (initially) is only interested in partaking of the fruit because the fruit in itself is knowledge. What is so wrong with knowing? Nothing. Ignorance is worse than knowledge, and even worse here is the fact God himself wants the humans he created to be ignorant. Shortly after partaking of the fruit, the story ultimately changes into a romance where Adam chooses to also eat so as to be with Eve (whom was created for him in the first place), and not separated.

Admidst this, God in his cruel way banish them from the kingdom. God, the one capable of doing anything, can not control his own creation. Its very complicated in the least to fathom the fact that God, despite having power, ignores using it. It almost seems like life then from there on is nothing more than humans as puppets and God as a puppeteer.

Throughout the course of the world's history, individuals who do yoga (and more specifically follow Hinduism/Buddhism) have the tendency to be almost exclusively more peaceful than other people. In my lense I try to be minimally condemning of anyones beliefs, as to some degree I feel most beliefs hold some water (and likewise, to some degree I inevitably doubt all of them the same). The reason I am choosing to highlight yoga on my lense is because I feel it a beautiful practice, that quite frankly many people (especially in the Western world) do not fully understand. Somehow yoga manages to be stereotyped as "the pagan way" and an "evil, worldly belief system." While it is innately not a "religious" practice, I feel it can potentially be mixed with any religious belief (or other belief).

Typically, yoga is associated with Eastern religions. Understandably so, considering yoga as an eight limbed path was developed through those religions.

So, what is yoga? Fundamentally it is a physical, spiritual, and mental journey for every individuals. Unlike many philosophies that seek dualism between the mind and body (to separate them), yoga is the practice which desires the mind and body to come together in unison throughout the eight stages; yet ultimately also divide (typically through physical death).

An overview of the eight limbs:

1. Yama (the "moral" guideline): non-violence, non-lying, non-covetousness, non-sensuality, and non-possessiveness.
2. Niyama (the five "observances"): purity, contentment, austerity, study, and surrender to god*.
3. Asana: The physical process of yoga
4. Pranayama: The control of life force
5. Pratyahara ("Abstraction"): Withdrawal of the senses
6. Dharana ("Concentration"): Fixing the attention on a single object.
7. Dhyana ("Meditation"): Intense contemplation of the nature of the object of meditation.
8. Samadhi ("Liberation"): Associated with death of the body and finding the true self (Atman)

If you are more interested in the journey of yoga, check out my lense Yoga: The Eight Limbed Experience

Here is a small list of DVD's I have enjoyed related to philosophy in one way or another.

Eastern & Western Philosophy Boxed Set

Chinese Religions:
China's Buddhism

God and Buddha
A Dialogue

Quantum Astrology:
Science, Spirit and Our Place in the Cycles of History

Pillars of Faith
Religions Around the World

One of my main goals when I create lenses is to make my lense interesting and something that people would like to return too. One way I intend to do this is by highlighting many notable philosophers (and by products of philosophers) on my page. In a way, I would like my lense to be a databank of knowledge compiled in a single location (and shortly, expanding to several lenses). Let me begin my "Philosopher Spotlight" section with Friedrich Nietzche.

Nietzche was born October 15, 1844. I could type pages worth of his upbringing, however that is not the purpose of this section.

Nietzsche applied himself to such topics as morality, religion, epistemology, psychology, ontology, and social criticism. Typically, much of his writings were in regards to his dissaproval of religion (specifically Christianity) due to the ignorance by the church in truly identifying Christ. He specifically longed to separate the religion of Christianity from the true man that was Jesus Christ. Nietzche's "hate" for religion specifically was fueled by his idea named transvaluation. Transvaluation consists of the process by which one can view the meaning of a concept or ideology from a "higher" context. What makes Nietzche so interesting to me is that he avoided the typically atheistic viewpoint that Christianity is simply untrue, but went beyond this simple thought by implementing the possibility that the Apostle Paul purposely propagated Christianity (as a psychological weapon) within the Roman Empire. Nietzche goes further to study the history of Christianity and its distortion over the years.

As mentioned earlier, Nietzche's philosophy is fairly expansive and to add, unique, especially for the time period. While I primarily highlighted some of his philosophy's toward Christianity, looking into his works will unveil to you who this man was and how he thought. I primarily focused on his view of religion as I feel religious beliefs are an important aspect of philosophy. Whether you agree with a religion or are against them, it is important to be well informed and think outside of the box. This is one reason I enjoy Nietzche's writings so much, as they have inspired me to minimally think outside of the usual thoughts society has implanted on my mind. Anyone striving to understand the world, but behind a cloak of bias is only harming themself. Reading and studying different individuals, and also creating your own philosophies are all beautiful aspects of the human mind. Nietzche is highlighted here because of his beautiful mind and ability to inspire many people to think freely.

Interested in Nietzche's writings and thoughts? Check out:

Basic Writings of Nietzsche
(Modern Library Classics)

The Will to Power

The Anti-Christ

Beyond Good and Evil
(Penguin Classics)

Nietzsche:
Human, All Too Human:
A Book for Free Spirits
(Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy)

Let me start my post today by making it explicitly clear that I do not really claim to be all knowing, but I am constantly looking to gain knowledge about a vast variety of topics. I have a very limited amount of formal education in the realm of philosophy, however this page is primarily about me being able to apply the concepts and ideas I have learned, and hopefully add my own spin to them. That all said, I will be discussing dualism today.

What is dualism? If I were to define it, I would say it is the separation of specifically two things; as if one is superior and the other is inferior. Generally speaking, Western Philosophy traces dualism back to Socrates; and to this day has not really let up. Throughout Socrates life, he generally said that he longed to experience the mind without the body. Even on his deathbed (seen artistically in my introduction), he told his friends that a philosopher should be happy to experience death; because it is the time when the physical body dies and the mind alone is able to exist without senses.

In many similar ways during a similar time period, Asian philosophies were attempting to do the opposite; bring the body and mind into unison with one another. Yoga is perhaps the most popular form of doing this, though many individuals (especially in the Western world) are unaware of Yoga beyond the physical experience of Yoga. The United States is so caught up in the physical and material realm that yoga is sold as an educational physical class. Typically, people seemingly take yoga just to "look better", completely overlooking the entire concept of yoga altogether.

Back on topic, the reason I really discuss dualism is because I feel dualism is inevitable and unstoppable. Even at the end of a yogi's (one who does yoga) journey, there is a separation of the body and mind in an extremely similar way to that of Socrates and Descartes. In essence, since dualism is fundamentally built into all people, it must inevitably exist.

So frequently do some philosophers attempt to teach people to "break down the walls" of dualism. The largest problem with this idea is that by creating and ensuing a world without duality, a new dualism is created: the dualists vs. the non-dualists.

What I find most fascinating (and similarly humerous) about the study of dualism is that some people hold it in such a high regard, as if it is the first question necessary to look at to solve further questions about existance.

Even more strange is that it has reached a new level of discussion, in such a way that religion and philosophy as a whole has reached a new level. The discussion is no longer a peaceful chat between friends, but ultimately now leads to war and death. How so? Examine all wars ever fought in the history of the world in the name of a higher power, justified in some way. Are not these wars about who is more superior and likewise who is inferior? Who is enlightened and unenlightened (Plato's "Allegory of the Cave")? The infamous Crusades were fundamentally created based on many individuals believing they are right, and the other side is wrong. What agony has this inevitably lead too?

I am not necessarily against war, and do feel there is justice in defending oneself; however to ignore the oppositions reasoning for their actions just leads to ignorance, which ultimately leads to more war.

Any comments, questions, or anything feel free to let loose in the comment box.

As said already, this is an excerpt from one of my philosophy class' papers. It relates to dualism, Asian philosophy (specifically yoga), and Western philosophy (specifically the ideas of Descartes):

Descartes and Patanjali were both on a spiritual journey of sorts, and while they both mapped similar roads (and perhaps their endings were most similar in relation); the means to getting there was extremely different. It could be said that Descartes suffered from the disease that is Western philosophy, that of pure dualism. I use the word "pure" to describe the form of dualism Western philosophy has come to be associated with, because in all honesty even the journey of yoga, Hinduism, and the Upanishads all appear to have an ending wherewith the individual forms a dualism between the soul and body. The largest difference between Asian philosophies dualistic idea and Western philosophies form of dualism is that the first leads to peace with the body before cutting the ties with the physical realm, and the latter leads to a constant battle (as depicted in Plato's "Allegory of the Cave") between the physical body and the abstract mind. In my mind, peaceful dualism is more of a mutual agreement between the body and soul to depart each other for the greater good. In some ways, the physical body simply acts as a vessel to which the mind experiences the world (for what reason, I am not sure).

Lately, I have been hearing more then ever the newly appointed President Obama associated with Socialism and Communist dictators. These thoughts are also typically coming from the mouths of those who claim to be religious. I am not going to claim that I am some expert on either the topic of religion or communism, but I have been (minimally) interested in understanding both. I understand that many people around me are religious, the United States is also fairly religious (consider how any highly elected official basically has to claim he has a one on one connection with God!), and that newly appointed President Obama has also claimed association with Christianity.

So, I have been considering; what are the differences (and similarities) between religion (in general) and communism (in general). This post is going to be filled with speculation, and while communism is a form of political government; I feel religion interacts all to often with politics. Therefore, when considering politics (of any form); religion should also be considered. If one examines past societies (and a few in this modern day), Theocracies often failed from the power-hungry leaders. The real question here is: is this not the same thing that occurs with Communism/Socialism? Are they both not good (dare I say, great?) ideas and forms of government?

Communism refers to a stateless and classless society. "Whats mine is yours", if you will. Is this not similar to how religion functions (at least, theoretically)? My god can be your god! My church can be your church! All of us are as one!

Is this not the "ideal" concept of a society? I feel that Western culture has all to frequently crafted an idea of "take, take, take" into its citizens minds. This is what has equally occured with religion. So many religious leaders (easily visible through televangelists) run there churches and programs on a hidden concept of "taking." I know from going to church and watching such programs that pastors will frequently ask for money as "tithes" (or what have you), and constantly bump up the price. It is these leaders both politically and religiously that inadvertantly create and spawn hatred (among many other emotions) in their religions believers (and likewise, non-believers).

Is Communism such a bad concept? No. Not at all. Have all of the leaders of Communist states gone power crazy? Yes.

Is religion such a bad concept? No. Have many of these leaders gone power crazy? Yes.

I will continue this at a further date...