Help support this page

You can help support this page.

You can easily send money following this method(via bank)

Saving account number:- 1000072142474

Name:- Alazar Desta

Swift number:- CBETETAA

Thanks in advance for the support and much needed motivation.

Posted via Blogaway

Gravity in the realm of thought?

Gravity as we know it is a law of physics. General relativity explaines the most accepted reasoning and scientific explanation behind it as of today.

When smaller objects get closer to bigger objects the bigger objects attract and pull the smaller objects because the dent that the bigger objects create on time space continium is much steeper than that of the smaller ones.

But anyways bigger objects have the legal right to pull smaller ones towards them.

This being accepted and true, a somewhat simmilar force like that of gravity can be seen working in the realm of thought.

Reasons that suggest that forces similar to gravity exist in state of thought.

1) We are compelled by some forces to act(or the forces have exerted a pull on us in order to act)

1.1) Whichever action it maybe that we do, we have been compelled by some force to do so.

1.2)  Feelings, desires, convictions and all that push a person to act in someway are pulls.

2) As we get closer to any pull the pull gets stronger and the harder it is to get out of the pull.

3) As we get farther, the pull gets weaker and the easier it is to get out of the pull.

4) There is an end to a pull as we acomplish the deed and satisfying a want is the acomplishment.

How gravitation works in the world of thoughts

5) First, The reciever of all feelings is the the person

Because

5.1) Feelings can't just happen there needs to be a feeler

5.2) There are preset values set by nature on the person. Eg pain, pleasure, good feeling and bad feeling. The person naturaly seeks pleasure and avoids pain, discomfort and displeasure because feelings and their basic interptetations of them are preset. Eg pain, pleasure, tiredness etc all have different interpretations and effects. Meaning one would feel those feelings together with their interpretations(good or bad) whether one likes it or not.

So

5.2.1) There are such things as preset good and preset bad. Feeling bad is naturaly a no no and feeling good is naturaly the oposite in terms of feelings for the feeler.

And

5.3) As a consequence of the preset values, the person can have good things or bad things happen to it due to preset interpretations of feelings in different circumstances.

Also

5.4) Whatever values not preset and are to yet to be set are only ways of accomplishing the fulfilments of those preset values.

Eg:- Say a moral conviction about something is not set and is yet to be set.
To set a moral conviction one would have to reason.
By reasoning one would chose what is moraly right in one's eyes.
By chosing what one thinks is moraly right one would satisfy the "feel good about self action and fairness" part of a naturaly preset characteristic one already has.(If one has one). Or it will for sure satisfy some preset value that one naturaly has or else there wouldn't even be the effort to set those values as the drive to set those values must have come from another force that wants satisfaction by setting up those values.

5.5) When one decides in certain situations there are different pulls that affect the person but it is mainly the preset pulls affect the person

Eg:- Whether or not to rape another person

Things that play a role.

5.5.1) The person

5.5.2) Feelings.

5.5.2.1) Main preset feelings meaning likes and dislikes, pleasures and displeasures(with the added effect of personal reasoning)

5.5.2.2) learned feeling(learned through what the comunity and others did and do and ethics of the comunity and others)

5.5.2.3) preset feelings(with added effect of reasoning) and learned feeling and also natural strength and  resistance of the person together would be the contributers for the outcome of the conclusive feeling that one may eventualy decide on.

The conclusive feeling is always a means of accomplishing a desire or desires of a preset feeling or feelings.

Meaning the conclusion would always satisfy some preset characteristic of self like happiness, fairness, survival, ego etc.

In this case if the conclusive feeling decided upon raping, it would have satisfied the pleasure and enjoyment part of preset feelings. If not, it would have satisfied either the caution, moral fairness, sympathy or other specific part or parts of preset feelings.

5.5.2.4) Standing by conclusuion depends mainly on strength of person as other feelings may sway the person away from the pulls of the conclusion as time goes by.

6) What does the pull pull if the person is only experiencer?

6.1) It pulls the experiancer because the main parts of what the experiencer would want and not want is already preset(happiness, satisfaction, pleasure, displeasure, pain, comfort etc). Interpretation of major feelings(especially from our sense organs) are already preset.(like pain, pleasure, cold, heat, relaxation, worry, fear etc) Values not preset and that are yet to be set are only ways of satisfying  preset values as seen above.

So to summerize

7) Preset values decide which way the person would get gravitated to and to what extent. They decide what the person would be pulled towards and against.

Eg:- Feeling of pain and pleasure. The person would naturaly be pulled away from pain and towards pleasure.

7.1) Since the basis for what one considers good and bad(in terms of feelings) is already preset, the magnitude of how much a person gets gravitated towards something is only the magnitude of the effect that the preset value has on the person

Eg:- If a person is getting hands burned, the person would be gravitated towards pulling the body part being burnt away from the fire.

If there maybe are other things that one may be gravitated towards doing, at that time, the magnitude of the gravitation towards pulling hand away from fire would most likely out gravitate almost any other gravitation that the person maybe gravitated towards doing at that time. So the person takes that action.

Or

If one is to decide whether to eat an unhealthy but delicious food or not while being obese, the preset feeling of wanting the pleasure of eating and the preset feeling of wanting to be happy and healthy by losing weight or wanting to exalt the ego are some of the major forces that have the power of pull.

Strength and resistance would have a say in the course of the action.

                                         

Posted via Blogaway

Freewill? (Factors for human will and action)

Freewill. What is free will? "Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action"Free will(wikipidia)

" “FreeWill” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives." Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy

Is there such a thing as freewill?

This question has been and is still being debated by philosophers and other fields of study. It is a topic that is being debated for more than two melenia.

Outside of the field of philosophy, though opposed by incompatibilists, one of the main fields that maybe involved in this topic is quantum physics on whether or not particles have deterministic nature.

Though it may be just a hypothesis, the following tries to elaborate the writer's idea and self theory on how human choice and action is made.

The following ideas are in opposition to the idea of free will.

1) Freewill, the idea itself denotes freedom to will.

So,  what is freedom? There are many definitions but lets take the one that would make sense in this situation. Freedom:- exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc. dictionary.com.

So to have freewill, one must have exemption from all those listed above when choosing.

1.1) But it is evident that unless one is without motive and feeling, or void of any sense and emotion, it is impossible to be totally free of any influence for any action for every living thing is burdened with motive, sense and character and is doomed to be influenced by atleast one thing when choosing or acting.

1.2) Everything in this universe behaves according to the laws of the universe. Therefore it is the laws of the universe that forces it to act in everyway that it does. We are part of the universe.

2) There are different forces in contributing to the choice or action a person may make or do.

I) The person
II) Feelings
III) Chance or law of nature
IV) conviction(reasoning and logic included)
V) Ego
VI) Chatacteristics like IQ and resistance

2.1) The person

Who is the person? The person is a different entity to feelings emotions thoughts, convictions and ego

2.1.1) The person is the reciever and interpretor of all senses, feelings, emotions, desires and convictions.

2.1.3) The person is also the responder or one who responds to different pressures of senses and feelings. The person intakes those pressures and it acts upon them accordingly.

2.1.4) Q) Why the person or what is the use of the person?

2.1.4.1) To recieve and interpret senses, feelings, emotions and the like

2.1.4.2) To reason and think

2.1.4.2.1) Reasoning and thinking helps in

2.1.4.2.1.1) Understanding a situation better so to make a better decision.

2.1.4.3) To act or respond. The person is the actor and responds to pressures of feelings in accordance to the pressures and person's nature or inclination.

2.2) Feelings:-

To feel:- "to be aware of (something that affects you physically) i.word.com

But here since we are talking about mental state we would include all that affect the mental state and say "To be aware of (something that affects you phisicaly, mentaly, emotionaly and in whichever way that your mental state can be affected in) "

2.2.1) Feelings are natural pressures that affect the person, and the person's response to take action or to choose.

There generaly are

I) Feelings from our sense organs
II) Feelings of the mind(Emotions, sentiment and desire) are examples.

I) Feelings from our sense organs are concrete and not manipulatable naturaly.

II) Feelings of the mind like emotion, sentiment and desire can many a times be controlled or inhanced by another thought or conviction.

2.3) Chance

"An accidental or unpredictable event." thefreedictionary.com

2.3.1) Whether chance plays a role in a person's action and choice is uncertain. But even if it does, the tottality of a person's action or choice is not determined by chance.

2.4) Convictions:-

Conviction:- "a fixed or firm belief" source

Convictions are beliefs that the person believes are concrete.
Some convictions come naturally while some through reasoning and logic.

2.4.1) Reasoning

Reasoning:- "the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises." dictionary.com

- The act of reasoning is action of the person as a response to feeling of uncertainity, curiousity or other feelings that may lead to such action.

Usualy Its an act for better understanding of things

After the better understanding, our feeling and inclination can take over based on the conclusions to make a choice or decision.

Reasoning leads to convinctions

2.5) Ego:- "your consciousness of your own identity" vocabulary.com

The ego is the self image that the person has of the self.

    Putting all the above in mind

2.6) Just as a person has physical characteristics, the person has mental characterstics  which are natural.

It is to be noted that these characteristics are also feelings.

They are natural tendancies or feelings of the person that they themselves contribute in making the person feel and respond to different situations in a certain manner.

These characteristics include

2.6.1) Inclination:-  Implies what force that plays a role in decision making, naturaly gravitates a person and to what extent.

These imply the likes and dislikes of the person
Meaning the extent at which the person is pulled towards either a feeling, conviction, ego or any force that affect the person during situation y at a mental state of z.

This naturally varies from person to person as inclinations varry from person to person.

2.6.2) Resistance of the person(Weight)

Resistance of the person(weight)
implies the person's inclination to stick to something the person already believes in or stick to the state that the person already is in.


2.6.2.1) One of the characteristics of the resistance of the person is resistance to change.

For example, those who are naturaly more resistant to change are less likely to go along new ideas as opposed to those who are naturaly less resistant to change and are less prone to new  pulls

Also those who are naturally more resistant to change are less likely to move from their convictions and get pulled by other feelings easily.

2.6.2.1.1) Being more change resistent gives the person more resistance towards any pull from the state that the person is already in

2.6.2.1.2) Being more change resistant gives the person more resistance towards any pull that may try to drift the person from the convictions that the person has already set.

2.6.2.2) Resistance or weight can also increase or decrease in different situations via knowledge, understanding and convictions. Because if the person can access reasons(forces)(as reasons are influencial factors in decision making) that can repell certain pull or push, the person would have added resistance(weight). The same goes the other way around.

2.6.3) IQ of the person.

IQ of the person plays a great role in determining the choice one makes

Because

2.6.3.1) A person with higher IQ may know better or more options and thus may choose accordingly.

2.6.3.2) A person with a higher IQ can add or decrease resistance according to desire as a higher IQ is a lot likely to figure out how.

So

3) The person being reciever, interpreter and responder just as everything else in the universe does, the person only recieves pressures, interprets it according to interpreting capacity and responds according to magnitude of pressure, direction of pressure, and resistance to the push or pull(weight).

Meaning to say if a choice of A and B is presented towards the person, what would determine the choice is

I) The person

II) The magnitude of pull A and B have separately on the person towards them.

III) Resistance(weight) of the person.

Resistence plays a big role because

Eg

III.I) If the person is in state where he constantly chooses A over C or D for a long time and a choice of A and B is presented, a person with more resistence to change is more likely choose A as opposed to a person who is not as change resistent.

III.II) If a person is given a choice of A and B and if the person has convinced self not to take choice B but the natural urge and feeling pushes the self to taking choice B. In this case the resistance(weight) of the person matters a lot in how easily the person falls for new ideas and takes the choice of the desires instead of convictions. Resistance here helps in sticking to convictions and not easily allowing self to be taken by other forces.


Resistance works the same way in different situations as well.


So what the above states is

-  Factors that determine a person's will are the person, inclination(feelings, included), convictions, IQ, and resistance(natural and added)

-  Natural tendencies of a person including feelings can be natural characters of the person. 

- The person also can have resistance(weight) as a character.

- Resistance can be added to and subtracted from via reasoning conviction.

In short it can be said that the factor that determines a person's choice is "what influential force(in deciding and acting) gravitates the person to an extent x in situation y at mental state z."

  

  

  

  

        

Posted via Blogaway

The difference between being and not being is only now.

1) Question:- Is something something even if it ends.

Answer:-  That something is something when it is something but when its not, its not(For itself)

Proof

1.1) What is being something? It is being whatever it is that it is. What is being?

'To be' is to exist, to occur, to take place. https://www.google.co.in/search?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C4835760478(type being for result)

To occur

Things can only occur when they occur. When they dont, they dont.

To exist

The best definition I like is  google's definition which is "in existence or operation at the current time."
https://www.google.co.in/search?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C2768304109(type existence for result)

- So it is "in existance or operation at the current time". If it is not in existence at the current time, it is not existing or being since there is no other time.

Looking at it in a logical way, it can not be that something when it clearly is not. But it is when it is. So when it ends being that something, it clearly is not that particular something anymore. As far as it is concerned(Without an outside observer), it is not that something period. No extention to that definition is allowed because it just is not(The something is not).

X is something on time Y(X is on time Y)

X is not something on time Z(X is not on time Z)

So, X is not on time Z means it is not existent on time Z.

So on time Z, X is not or is not existent.

So whilst on time Z, is there an X as that particular something? No.

So In time Z, X is not existent as that particular something which is X so there is no X.

But

1.2) That something may have a residual effect on other things  that it came in contact with or somehow affected in anyway when it was that something even if it is not that something anymore.

2) Same goes for us living things as individuals.

2.1) As an individual, when the individual is no more, it is no more

2.2) As an individual, what happens next is unknown but in this realm of existence and also talking according to logic and reality(which is reality that we are in) there is no such a thing for the individual because there is no such a thing as that individual at that time or after the individual dies.

2.2.1) So is there an individual after the individual dies? No

2.2.2) Was there an individual?

2.2.2.1) As far as the things that the individual affected are concerned, yes. Because that individual caused some kind of effect on them.(If it did)

2.2.2.2)  As far as the individual is concerned, even the question would be inexistent and invalid.

because the individual is not there to have any effect of it.

Also

2.2.2.2.1) For the individual, being dead after existing would be the same as not existing at all.

Proof

2.2.2.2.1.1) The state that the individual is in during the time it didn't exist is 'no state'

2.2.2.2.1.2) The state that the individual is in after individual dies is also 'no state'

2.2.2.2.1.3) At 'no state' there is no present, past or future since there is no state to begin with.(This article argues there is no past and future per se even if something or individual exists).
At 'no state' there is no such a thing as the individual.

2.2.2.2.1.4) Thus both 2.2.2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2.2.1.2 are the same in everyway possible because there is no way to compare them since both are not existent and are not available and are both inexistent.

So what is the difference between existing and not existing?

3) The difference between existing and not existing or being and not being is only now.

Proof

3.1) As stated above, one of the definitions of 'to be' is 'to occur'.

So

Things can only occur when they occur and no other time.

the concept of time may just be an illusion.

" Time may have no independent existence it may be just a common unit of motion making the world that is filled with motion easier to describe." http://www.timephysics.com

3.2) Something can only exist in the now.(In its own now)

3.3) There may not be such a thing as time per se but occurrences.(again things can only occur when they occur).

3.4) Can something be in the past or future?

- No it can not. Why? Its very hard to explain but

3.4.1) For something to exist it has to be. Something can not be anywhere else but the present. Even the verb be points twoards that.

3.4.2) If we say something is in the past, it is a contradictory statement because the verb 'is' denotes present.

3.4.3) Same for the future. If we say something is in the future, same contradiction.

3.4.4) The moment something becomes, it is present and can not be any other way. It can only be when and only when it becomes.

4) So being or existing is always in present. So the present is the difference between being and not being or existing and not existing.



Posted via Blogaway

7 differences between '0' and 'nothing'

Zero:- "0(zero;BrE:/ˈzɪərəʊ/orAmE:/ˈziːroʊ/) is both a number[1]and the numerical digit used to represent that number in numerals. It fulfills a central role in mathematics as the additive identity of the integers,real numbers, and many other algebraic structures. As a digit, 0 is used as a place holder in place value systems.Names for the number 0 in Englishinclude zero,nought or (US)naught(/ˈnɔːt/),nil, or — in contexts where at least one adjacent digit distinguishes it from the letter "O" —ohoro(/ˈoʊ/). Informal or slang terms for zero includezilchandzip.[2]Oughtandaught(/ˈɔːt/), as well as cipher, have also been used historically". wikipidia

Nothing:- "Nothing is a pronoun denoting the absence of anything. Nothing is a pronoun associated with nothingness.[1]In non technical uses,nothing denotes things lacking importance, interest, value, relevance, or significance.[1]Nothingnessis the state of being nothing,[2]the state of nonexistence of anything, or the property of having nothing". wikipidia

Nothing does not and can not be defined since it does not exist.

                       Differences

1) There is a '0', but there is no such a thing as 'nothing'

2) Total nothing is inexistance and therefore inexistant and thus can not be seen, touched, heard, thought about or imagined since it does not exist. 0 is to be realized. eg 0 potatos, 0 energy, the number 0 etc

3) 0 is a number and number is something

4) 0 is a something(a number) used in a system of counting and measuring.

                        Proof

4.1) There is always a _____ after 0. eg 0 potatoes, 0 energy. Other than that, there is no such thing as 0 by itself unless "the number 0" which is a number thus something.

and thus

4.2) Since it is in a system of counting and measuring, there is always the counter, measurer or comprehender and can not be without a counter, measurer or comprehender. On the other hand 'nothing' doesn't need or have or can't have  anything(like counter, measurer or comprehender)

5) '0' can be a result of a minus and plus of a same number and those numbers also can be made from '0'. Hence '0' can be a result and also other results can be derived from it. 'Nothing' can't be a result because
i) A result is something
ii) A result to begin with needs preexistance or existance of things that it is a result of.  But total nothing is inexistant, has never existed nor will it ever exist. There is nothing before or after it as there is no it.
Also, there isn't anything that can be derived from it because there is no it.

6) Something can be added or subtracted to '0'. But there is nothing that can be added to or subtracted from something that does not exist.

7) 0 is a concept, while 'nothing' can't be conceptualized.

Posted via Blogaway

Faith in a higher power

Belief:- Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: the free dictiinary

How and why should one accept something as true or false. Should it be blindly or reasonabhly?

Faith:- Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing or a belief not based on proof. wikipidia

1) Faith is a type of belief

2) Faith is a step taken to believe in something when a belief is not strong, concrete or justifiable enough to be absolutely sure.

3)  Even so, to have faith in something still needs some kind of evidence.
There is no faith without evidence
  eg :- To have faith in someone when giving that someone an important task, one atleast needs an evidence of the capability of the person.

4) Faith is naturaly believing in something when there is a probability in one's mind that that something may not occure, happen or be there. But if one has faith towards it, the probability in one's mind weighs towards the thing that one has put one's faith on. Meaning that one would somehow put one's confidence in that thing that one has put one's faith on occuring, happening or beaing there.

5) Faith is natural and is determined unconsciously rather than consciously
eg1:- To have faith on one's friend lending one money when one is in need, that faith is predetermined by the way that friend acted before during such situations. The faith one would have would be predetermined by the previous situations and the courage to ask would also be predetermined subconsciously by the previous actions. If that friend is a type of person that would get angry at such situations, one's subconscious mind wouldn't give one the courage to ask. (This would be observed to a greater magnitude if, at the time of the incident, one stops and thinks to decide whether one has faith in that particular situation or not)

eg2:- To have faith that the car one is in would reach the destination safely would greately depend on the history of the driver's driving record. If one has had too many accidents already, the faith will decrease to a great extent. Even more so, if the driver has never driven. So faith is predetermined subconsciously.(This would be observed to a greater magnitude if, at the time of the incident, one stops and thinks to decide whether one has faith in that particular situation or not)

            Faith in a higher power

Should faith in a higher power be blind or should it be based on reason? As I have mentioned above(with proof), there can be no faith without some kind of basic proof or evidence.
eg:- To be a christian, one either has to grow up in a christian family, where one trusts one's parents and the parent's faith affects one's faith. By beaing indoctrined christianity from childhood one would fill the unexplainabe(as there are many unexplainables in life) in life by the doctrines of christianity as an obvious answer. Or one has to be convinced through reasoning and evidence that fits and defeates one's mind and one's reasoning in that particular subject.

That beaing so, should the questioning and evidence searching stop at a certain level like what many theists do?(this is solely from my observation) Or should the questioning continue until one's reasonable questions towards that query is fully answered?

               Questions

1) Should one have believe in a higher power in order to gain something in this life and or after or should one believe because of the simple fact that it is true?

2) Would a reasonable higher power expect us to believe in him/her blindly?

3) Would he/she reward those that believed in him/her blindly or those that believe in him/her with evidence?

4) Is it faith blindly or faith with evidence that is stronger and unshakable?

5) What is the big deal about believing? What difference does that bring to the higher power or self?

6) Say the higher power one believes in has no power over one in life nor in death, would one still worship that power?

         Things I have observed

From the religions that I know of, even though most to all are not conscious of it, unconsciously, the reason that people have faith in a higher power is

i) for that higher power to help them in their daily lives

ii) To live a better or ever blissful life forever after this life.

iii) To avoid punishment in this life and after from that certain higher power.

Proof

- There is no mention of other objectives in the motives as to why one should believe in a particular sect of faith than the promise of good life, reward after death and avoidance of punishment here and after life.
- If the motive for following a particular path of faith in a higher power is just because that it is a true path, the belief system should be based on evidence and search of truth rather than just faith.

Posted via Blogaway

Morality

Morality(from the Latin moralitas"manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are distinguished as proper functions and those which involve the omission of proper functions, the disjunction between right and wrong.[1]Morality canbe a body of standards or principles derived from acode of conductfrom a particularphilosophy,religion, or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should beuniversal.[2]Morality may also be specifically synonymous with"goodness" or "rightness." wikipidia

1) Morality is an ideological set of rules that one followes in one's standard of thinking and acting.

2) One's morality may be derived from society, religion, comprehention and nature.

3) Morality is an inescapable characteristc that a normal human beaing has and is unseparable from a thinking human.

Proof:-

3.1) A normal human beaing has to have a say(to self) about what one thinks is right and what one thinks is wrong about any thing or something that one comes across in one's life. One can't just stay indifferent to everything in life.

3.2) If one has one's own view about anything based on anything be it based on religion or social values or self value, one has morality.

4) The set of values that one has because of one's morality is not an an indefinite constant and are prone to change.

Proof:-

4.1) Say I believe in God and have certain values based on my belief in God and the commandments. Then say that I got into science and got convinced that there may not be a God.

4.2) I start following a different set of moral values that are not based on religion.
Which is a possible outcome

5) Moral values are set to be kept but are not always kept

Proof

5.1) Say I believe that premarital sex is wrong I shouldn't get involved in it because of my religious convictions.

5.2) I meet a tempting woman at a tempting situation.

5.2.1) I fell my values and have premarital sex.
Which is a possible outcome

6) Moral values do get in conflict with instincts.

Proof
6.1) Take 5.1, 5.2 and 5.2.1

6.2) Why did I fell my moral values and have premarital sex?

6.2.1) I fell because I had an instinctive desire to have sex.

6.2.2) But I also had a morality that forbid me from doing such an act.
Thus those two entities are in one and are in conflict.

7) Morality or moral values are not kept because the strength in which those beliefs have a pull on one is not strong enough to overcome the strength in which those instincts that oposes those moral values have a pull on one

Proof

7.1) Take examples 5.1 - 6.2.2 Which indicated that the pull that was exerted on one by instinct was greater in force than the pull that was exerted on one by one's morality.
If that was not the case the results would have been otherwise(One is a different entity)

8) What if the pull exerted on one by both is equal.

8.1) (One is a different entity)

8.1.1) When in the process of making a decision, one choice has to be made

8.2) In the case where both forces are equal, decision would be made according to the inclination one takes during the time of decision.

8.2.1) So if these two forces are a pull, they get stronger when closer and weaker when farther just like gravity.

8.2.2) Getting closer is entertaining the idea more. Farther is not entertaining the idea

8.2.2.1) The more one entertaines either of the pulls, the more force either of the pulls have on one and vice versa.

8.3) So one can either strengthen or weaken a pull by entertaining it or by not entertaining it.

9) This is only true, if both forces are true.

Posted via Blogaway

Ten reasons why it is not moraly wrong to eat meat. (Criticism on veganism)

I have read a couple of arguments stressing the idea of how moraly wrong it is to eat meat and dairy products. We have to know that like every argument, there are two sides to the debate. Today I am here to argue beaing in the side that it is not as wrong as pro vegetarians or pro vegans are claiming it to be.
Keeping the reasons why it is moraly wrong to eat meat aside, here are some reasons why it is not moraly wrong to eat meat.

1) Nature, By nature I mean that we have naturally adoped to eating meat. We are omnivorous animals. Meaning nature has given us the go ahead to eat both meat and vegitables. If we wern't given the ok by nature,
- we wouldn't have canine teeth
- we wouldn't be able to digest meat properly, and it would have been poisonous to us.
- we wouldn't be naturally atracted to eating it.

2) Most animals that we have adopted to eating have sentiment free goalless lives. Animals excluding humans have no goals, aspirations, deep sentimental feelings, moral convictions and other values that would have made it moraly a lot more challenging for us to kill them.

3) Other animals eat other animals naturally anyway. Both carnivorous and omnivorous animals eat other animals. It is natural. The don't argue wheather they should eat them or not. We have to remember here that we are omnivorous animals.

4) This practice has been passed down from generation to generation since the begining of the existance of humans where things when done purely by instincts and the natural way of doing things. They were not wrong to eat meat then because they did it out of instincts. We, their forechildren, the same spicies naturally wouldn't be wrong by doing the same thing.

5) Naturally, they provide energy for our survival.

6) This reality to begine with is a " survival of the fittest" reality.

7) They are not aware of it

8) They dont show any moral objection nor resistance about their dying.

9) We are one of their natural preditors

10) They would eat us alive if they ate meat and had a chance to like all meat eating animals do to other animals.

It is still a moral battle between the left side and the right side. Morally, we should still let them live as decently as possible as long as they are alive. The argument on wheather it is moraly right to kill animals for our consumption is very debatable as everything we do is debatable. I would say according to nature it is not. Moraly, It is not compleatly wrong to do so since nature has burdened us with the ability and collective desire to eat meat and by instinct we have done so since the begining of the existance of human kind. Nature giving us tools to do so(like desire, natural ability to kill, chew and digest)  means it is the go ahead sign from nature. Go ahead sign from nature means its natural. Ok its natural. We got that out of the way. But the thing is we have a choice and we can live without eating meat. The debate is the desire to eat meat vs the life of an animal. Animals that we eat have no goals, no dreams, no knowledge of whats happening, no sentiment and other qualities which would have made it a lot more difficult morally to argue that it would be ok to kill them for the sake of enjoyment or survival. The other factor that would have made it really hard moraly to kill them is the knowledge of dying and the resistance that would be put in order for that not to happen which animals don't seem to have. Even if animals switch to fight or flight mode when they are in danger and in pain they don't really know and think about death like we do. Also aside from the fight or flight mode of struggle that they show, they don't have a moral objection and moral resistance themselves which would have made it morally impossible for us to kill them for our enjoyment or survival.

Life of an animal or enjoyment?
Like everything else in life, things should be looked at and be done in accordance to balance. So when we look at this case, it is between the worth of the animals life and our desire to eat meat. Why shouldn't we enjoy our meat? Trying to be morally right right? Well, whether we know it or not, like everything we do, trying to be moraly right is something that we do for our benefit. How so?  to benefit our consciousness or not to be at conflict with our consciousness. Becsuse not beaing right with our consciousness would have consequenses. So we have to balance the two in our mind to be moraly right for ouselves and do things we like, it would I think come down to our personal feelings and consciousness and would ultimately come down to which outweighs which.

We don't own ourselves and are slaves to another force.

We human beaings are very different from our animal counterparts that exist alongside us. We have a complicated mind that asks questions and tries its hardest to find the answers by complicated way of thinking, reason and complicated methods of solving problems. Even if a first generation doesn't solve a problem, we have ways of conserving and passing down information to others and another generation so that they can start from where we left.

It is in our nature to ask questions. Curiousity is part of our natural behavior. The amount of our undertanding is limited by our natural ability and the amount of knowledge we have.
Though curious by nature, we naturally don't ask the question "who's are we". What I mean to say is to whoom does our soul, body and mind belong to? We may think that since our body, mind, soul is ours, we own it. I am here to argue logically that some other force ownes us and we are slaves to that force.
Here are the logical points to my argument.

1) To own something one can't be that thing itself
The very simple logic that owning something needs two parties, the owner and the owned

2) We didn't begin ourselves
To begin with, beaing alive is what we are, if we owned ourselves, we would have been the one's that began ourselves. We got here unknowingly and without consent. But still we have to bear the burdens of life.

3) We had no control on what would look like and what our capabilities would be
We got here whether we liked it or not. Then, we found ourselves beaing human, black or white, tall or short or whatever. If we owned ourselves, we would be in control of what we would be and how we would be like.

4) We are burdened with things and feelings we don't like.
Lets face it. If I owned myself, I wouldn't give myself the feeling of pain, sorrow, and whatever. If we owned ourselves, we would only have feelings that we wantef.

5) There is a clear benrfitiary from our living, survival and reprooduction
Yes, nature wants us to live, procreate and evolve to a better spicies. This is very clear from the evidences of evolution

6) Our likes, dislikes, needs and desires are influenced by nature for our survival and thus survival of the spicies.
Every part of ourselves is designed for us that we would use it for our survival. Thats not it. Nature doesn't care for the survival of an individual but for the whole spicies. Thus individual survival collectively increases the chance of the survival of the whole spicies. This also is a very accepted idea in science by those who support the theory of evolution. Which basically is most of the scientific comunity.

7) If we owned ourselves, everything of ours would be at our disposal.
We would feel the way we wanted. Look the way we wanted, have abilities the way we wanted etc.

8) If we owned ourselves, life itself would be at our hands and wouldn't have to live or die unless we wanted to.
Yes if we owned ourselves, we would also own our life. Comming to existance and going out of it would be at our disposal.
.

To live or to die?

To live or to die. Which is better? Obviously it is in our nature to want to live and continue living unless of course life gets too rough and we can't stand the pressure of continuing to live anymore. We by our natute may choose death as an escape in extreem cases. Unless that, it is our nature to want to continue living. It is our name. It is our nature. We are life forms. Living is our nature and our interest. Not living is against our nature and against our interest and no interest in it for us as we ourselves won't exist. But instead a loss of ourselves.

Life is existance. It is in the realm of existance. Death(true death), (though  unknown what is after death of the phisical self), true and full death is in the realm of non existance. So by nature, since life is in the realm of existance, all things that are able to exist exist be it good or bad. So when living, one has to face all that exists in this realm of existance, especially things around one be it good or bad. So when one is living one has to face everything good and bad. But when one is dead, one wouldn't have to face anything.

Like everything else an argument should be based on reason, logic and by looking at both sides of the argument.

Here are the pros and cons of life and death

                       LIFE

Pros:-

1) Chance for general experience:-
Death is total inexperience. Living would give a chance to experience whatever in general.

2) Good experience:-
Life has both good and bad experience in its package. If one is lucky, eventhough it is almost imposible to escape bad experience all togather all of one's life, one can more or less have a good life. This applies more to humans as they can have goals and accept things they can not controll but still try to beat the challenges.

3) Hope, a never ending promise of life:-
When one is alive, one always has hope. Hope that life might be better in the future or even maybe unending blissful life forever. Who knows? The sky is the limit and literally it may be especially for us humans.

4) Good experience is better than no experience. It is bad experience that is not better than no experience:-
As the heading states it is bad experience that is not better than no experience. It is in the occasion of extreem bad ecperience that we may choose to die naturally. But good experience is or at least it seems to be a lot better than no experience . Life has good experiences in it. Infact if lucky one may be able to overlook the bad ones and enjoy and look forword to the good ones.

5) Mystery:-
There has been and is and always will be this unknown mystery in life about life. Who knows what it could be. Maybe something extraordinary.

6) Life is simply just our nature
For us life forms, life is just our nature and living is what we are. It wouldn't benifit us life forms in any way not to live but is against our nature.

Cons:-

1) Probable suffering:-
Since life is in the realm of existance, in the realm of existance all things that can exist do exist if with legitimacy. Thus, suffering(being in the realm of existance itself), is something that any living has to come across and cope with.

2) Burdened with need:-
Eventhough we may think that we are free, we really are not. We are burdened with many things that we have no controll of. Not only that but those things that we are burdened with have too much grip on us that it is impossible to deny or ignore them. This is because we are not legaly the owners of ourselves. Nature ownes us. Thus, whatever nature burdened us with, we can try to beat it using the laws of nature itself, but it is impossible otherwise.
eg:- pain, sadness and senses and feelings in general.
We, eventhough we dont know it, are slaves to nature and It is impossible to be free unless using the laws of nature itself. Eg we can not be free of the need to eat as we can not survive without it.

3) There is no such thing as perfect:-
Yes, whatever may happen, its always not perfect.

                         DEATH

Pros

1) Relatively free:-
As I mentioned above, to live is to be a slave to self. But if dead, there is no need, no want and no burden.

2) We are meant to die one day anyway:-
However we maybe afraid of death, it is inevitable. As life is our nature, as lifeforms we are meant to die one day and thus in our nature.

3) Nothing
As death itself is nothing and does not exist, there is no pros to it as there is no cons to it from the prespective of one who is dead

CONS

1) Nothing to be gained from not living:-
As we are life itself there is nothing we as lifeforms can gain from not living. As life, it is impossible to gain anything from not living.

2) Losing whole of life:-
When one dies one loses everything including life.

3) Nothing:-
As death itself is nothing and does not exist, there is co cons to it as there is no pros to it from the prespective of one who is dead.







Approved for "True philosophy", "Philosophical critics on interesting topics" and "Into philosophy".

The dangers of trying to be enlightened

RULE 1:- Dont try to act instictictively because that comes instinctively and not by trying.
RULE 2:- Dont try to act instinctively when you need to think because instincts is going to be yelling for you to think.

Enlightenment as its popular interpretation and popular ideology currently would be being in the most blissful of states because of the light in which one sees things. It is claimed that when one is enlightened, one would see things in "the whole picture" type of view. That view and state of being is achieved by getting rid of the ego, not being trapped in the scheme of the mind and knowing how to be in the now and having a distant relationship with thought. According to the most popular theory of being enlightened, there is a mind created state " the I" and Killing the mind created state "the I", would kill the old preception of self, create a whole new preceptiom of self into one with more true and whole prespective into things including and especially about self.

Though it is right to be skeptical, it may also be wrong to say that it is false. It may be true. We may need to be enlightened in such a way to see the whole picture. We may need to get rid of the deceptions of our own mind to see the whole picture about things, life and ourselves.
Obviously it would be great if one gets enlightened, but should one go all out in trying to be enlightened. How should one go about in trying to be enlightened.

My argument here is that it is God/nature that enlightenes meaning to say that beaing enlightened should come naturally and should not be the result of an effort and our way of beaing should be effortless.
Just beaing is exaactly what it is, just beaing. I mean that's the whole point right? If you are trying to be enlightened then you are trying. You are not just beaing. Meaning to say you havn't freed your self yet while the whole point of being enlightened is beaing free.

From what I understand trying to be enlightened is trying to be free. Beaing free should be and is natural. If God/nature has deemed you not free you will never be free no matter how much you try. So if one is trying to be free, one should try in a natural way because one is trying to achieve a natural thing.

I am not saying that one should not try to be enlightened but one's trying should not interfere in one's life and one's already gotten freedom.
As I understand it, there are very popular teachings that teach that in order to be enlightened, one should kill the ego, be in the now, forget about the past and future and think only when one desires not when one's mind desires. I am not saying that their claim is wrong. It may be right. But that doesn't mean that one should live one's life trying and take the God given freedom for granted. By doing that one would be missing out on life that is at hand and would be living a very unnatural life of trying to be free when one already has freedom.

I would suggest that if one wants to go in the path of trying to be enlightened, one should set up times when one would try such practices and maybe grow slowly in such ideas if they are natural. It should be done within program. After such a program one should live one's normal life as one would normaly do. But if one tries to apply such practices in a day to day life and wholy, as a principle in one's life, it would be unnatural because to begin with the whole point of beaing enlightned is beaing free. But here one is living a life trying to achieve freedom which already is granted naturally with the only requirement of not trying anything and just living as the heart wants.

Through evolution we have already adopted to a certain way of living, beaing and acting and reacting towards situations. Nature by itself has made us adopt and has decided and granted a certain natural way of beaing for us. Any way of beaing that doesn't come instinctively comes from our thought process. So generally one of the characteristics of beaing free is basically acting instinctively during times where we don't need thought process or times when we are better off without it because in this prespective beaing free is already having enough and not struggling for anything. So in such times trying to obtain some way of beaing would be against nature and can be considered a sin against nature. Because in the process one is trying to act instinctively and freely while acting instnctively comes instinctively and not by trying.

Living a life wholly trying to be enlightened is guaranteed a hell lot less enjoyable and with a lot less freedom than that of just living life as nature has made us to be. Not only that but one would be thinking and acting unnaturally and would be in a lot of unconfortable situations because of the fact that it is simply a sin against nature itself.

It should be noted that if one wants to live a life of enlightenment wholly as one's way of life, one should be in the path of nature. It is only God/nature that can enlighten. If one is truely enlightened, one shouldn't have to try anything to achieve any state of beaing because that state of being would come naturally. All one would have to do is forget about the idea of trying to achieve any state of beaing, forget about enlightenment and just live and be.

POLITICS

Ok Politics, what is it? Politics by definition would be the art or science of government. Politics is a way things are run in a certain society. Yes politics is a dirty, dangerous and decieving game more in some places than others but generally fits that category. It is definately a topic which may bring one to argument with self on wheather or not one should get involved in it. Getting involved doesn't necessarly mean beaing in a governing position but being participant in different levels from the level of just having the knowledge about it to being social activist to being in a position in power. Eventhough it is a sensitive topic and even if it might heat up emotions, since we are logical beings we should do things reasonably and logically. So now my question here is should one or shouldnt one get involved in politics. Well it is all up to the interest of the individual. I wouldnt say that one should or shouldnt and I personally believe that nobody would be right to say that to anybody since it all depends on the personal interest, inclination and on what gravitates one.
When is it a must to get involved and when is it a must to not get involved? Can one really say that one should or shouldn't?
I believe that things should be done according to reason and interest. Well putting interest aside, since everything has pros and cons here are the reasons why one should or shouldn't get involved in politics.

REASONS AND TIMES WHY ONE SHOULD GET INVOLVED IN POLITICS

1) COLLECTIVE AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION ALWAYS GIVES PUSH TOWORDS CHANGE:-
One should be aware and participate in the politics of one's country to a certain extent because of the fact that collective awareness and participation to a cerain extent is always helpfull in giving a push towards a change in accordance to the likes and benifit of the society.
2) MAY BE INTERESTING TO TALK ABOUT
It is a topic of discussion just like any other topic and might be interesting to talk about.
3) MAYBE PERSONAL NATURAL INCLINATION
If one's inclination is towards politics one should give it a go in attaining one's interest.
4) IF PARTICIPATION WILL SHURELY BRING CHANGE
In a situation where one is sure that one's participation will bring about change for a reasonable amount of time it may be reasonable for one to give it a go.
5) IF CONSCIOUS COMPELLS ONE
If one's conscious compells one into participating and participating in different degrees according to the situation.
6) IF ONE IS HARDCORE POLITITIAN BY NATURE
If one naturally is inclined towards it and has decided without a doubt to be involved no matter what because of ones carrier calling. Hardcore polititians probably fit in this catigory.
7) TO BRING SOLUTION TO A BURNING PROBLEM AT HAND
If there is a burning problem at hand that needs to be solved by getting involved and if not solving it would be unbearable.
8) IF THERE IS A GOOD MATERIAL, IDEOLOGICAL OR POLITICAL GAIN
If the gain (be it political, ideological or material), to be made is significant.
9) JUST HAVING KNOWLEDGE COUNTS AS A POTENTIAL TO USEFULL PARTICIPATION AND KNOWING DOESNT HURT
The mere act of having knowledge is in some way participating because knowing is half the battle and is a huge potential. There is no harm in knowing and there is no gain in not knowing. But having the mere knowledge has a potential.
10) PARTICIPATION MAY BRING CHANGE IN THE FUTURE
It is always a balance between self survival and conscious and doing something for the next generation. If one personally strongly believes that it is better to sacrifice self survival for the future generation it is up to the person's convictions.
11) PLAIN MORAL CONVICTION
Whatever the reason maybe(as there can be lots) if one is totally convinced he/she should go for it.
12) WITHOUT A CHOICE
Sometimes one gets involved in politics without one's choice. Even when one doesn't want to get involved at all one might get dragged into it.

REASONS AND TIMES WHY ONE SHOULD NOT GET INVOLVED IN POLITICS

1) THE CHANGE ALWAYS CHANGES
After sacrifices are made, a lot of struggles done and results gained, the change that was aquired does change again in the future maybe in the opposite direction. But of course the responsibility can be given to the comming generation of strugglers. But it is still a reason that may give one a second thought.
2) MAY BE DANGEROUS 
Any form of participation in politics maybe extreemly dangerous in some places and situations. So it again comes down to survival or sacrifice.
3) LACK OF FUNDEMENTAL REASON
In situations where one has to balance and choose between survival and sacrifice, if one thinks things thoroughly, one may find it hard to come up with a solid and unchanging reason why one should sacrifice one's  life for. The reason beaing that everything about politics changes in time. Even geographical boundaries, cultures and racial divisions for which people usually sacrifice themselves for change in time.
4) TOO COMPLICATED TO CHOOSE ONE PURE PATH
Politics by nature is extreemly complicated and by nature will always have faults. Like everything else one path has pros and cons. Based on that if one chooses one path and becomes a hardline follower there will always be opositions with different ideologies and different pros and cons and also hardliners.
5) IF THERE IS NO PERSONAL CONVICTION
Just the mere reality of not having the moral conviction to go out and confront the challenges of being involved and work for a better something is a deal breaker for getting involved since there maybe serious threats for one's well being.
6) IF REASON FOR SURVIVAL AND PEACE OUTWAYS REASON FOR SACRIFICE
At the end of the day it all comes down to the weighing done between survival and sacrifice. If after reasoning, the reason for survival and life without the consequences of being involved outways the reason for paying whatever sacrifices one would pay by being involved it again is reasonable to not get involved.

Consciousness may be in or behind everything(Even in non living)

Does consciousness only reside and exist in non living things as we see it? Of course living things are consciousness themselves. But even if things seem the way they are, according to plain evidences, consciousness exists even without living things. One proof for that notion is the process of evolution, meaning to say how life forms always evolve in a way that is e\beneficiary to their survival and adopt to the environment that they are in through evolution. The process of evolution is very complex but according to the process itself, it is extremely improbable that live evolves randomly. The logical argument being that there are almost infinite ways to evolve. But life evolves according to the environment in order to adopt and heighten its chances of survival. Not to mention the fact that all members of species experience the same kind of change when evolution takes a step.

Aside from evolution, it is still a question weather consciousness exists in non living things like matter, energy etc or weather it is behind their action and existence.

Consciousness by definition or by nature is awareness. Consciousness is an entity that is aware. Of course living things are aware. It is their nature. But are non living things aware or not?

There are some things that suggest or support the idea that non living things are also aware and also there are some things that make non living things similar to living things.

This chart shows the similarities and connectedness of living and non living things

Living things	Non living things
Living things are aware	Non living things are also aware of their surroundings Eg:- Atoms bonding according to their needs through awareness of surroundings
Living things respond to different circumstances	Non living things also respond to pressure and according to the law of physics
Living things grow	Non living things also grow and form big systems. Atoms grow and form molecules and compounds. Planets form solar systems, galaxies etc which have their own system of functioning
Make decisions	Non living things also make decisions. Eg:- Uncertainty principle:-  Indicates that position and momentum can’t be know simultaneously. When observed something of theirs makes a decision and forbids the observer from knowing Observer effect:-  Measurements of certain systems can not be made without affecting the system. Quantum entanglement:-  In entangled particles, one action at one place instantly affects the action in any place in the universe if it is part of the entangled particle
Borrows energy to exist	Uncertainty principle states that particles are allowed to borrow energy to exist for a short span of time.

   These are some examples that may incite the idea that non living things might also be aware to a certain level or there may be awareness behind them.

These may suggest that there may be clear relationship b/n consciousness and any material of any state.

To summarize, consciousness is a subject that has not been studied enough and is literally untapped. Of course, it is a very hard subject to study b/c of its nature. It is not something that is directly observable and so it is not measurable and calculable. The only thing that can be observed is its existence through us living things in this universe and some clues of circumstances that may incite its presence.  

Love(The legitimate state of love is a potential emotional gravitational force within oneself that has different tunes and textures.)

Love is a legitimate state of emotion which has the potential to gravitate the bearer towards it. It is almost all the time incited naturally. It grows into a very strong state if visited adequately in its positive light and not negative. Also by adequately doing acts that are the fruits of it. The legitimate state of love is a potential emotional gravitational force within oneself that has different tunes and textures.

Love does not only grow in the emotional environment of the one that is showing love but also it grows in the emotional state of the one that is being loved as well. eg:- A child growing to have love for parents.

Like most things granted to living things by nature, love also is devised by nature for life or species showing this emotional state to have a better chance of survival. Love gives the bearer a push to do something that otherwise the bearer wouldn't have done or would have been a lot more reluctant and a lot less effective. By doing so it is most likely to guarantee safety for some and ability to reproduce for others. Some examples are:- 

• Parents care, nurture and protection for their children, 
• Fighting for someone one loves,  
• Taking care of elderly family members etc.

Nature also sugarcoated love with temporary pleasures and displeasure(displeasure if negated). It coated it with emotional satisfaction and emotional dissatisfaction(If action taken against and despite the feeling.) eg:- Moral satisfaction, Self guilt, Pleasure of love, Loneliness etc... 

Like everything else, a more evolved and mature love is the stronger and a more stable one. Love felt in an instant or an infant love is a potential to be a strong stable everlasting state. But it is prone to death and elimination if not paid adequate care, attention and if not fed. The main food for love is the response or feeling of the other party.

Hate is the opposite of love. As its opposite, acts of hate in its environment is like an antimatter. If the love is in an infant state, it(hate) has the potential to kill it quickly.

There are different types of love that differ in tune and texture. For example, love for a mother is not the same as love for a wife.

The deciding factor that plays a role in determining the texture that a love turns out to have is on what the love was based on and from what state and intention that the love was born out of also in what direction it was directed to take in its infancy and young state.

The texture that a love is suppose to take is incited at first by nature. For example, a mother feels a certain type of love by nature when she first bears a child and she can make it grow in that direction. Also a young man naturally may feel love in a different texture when he sees a woman he is attracted to and also he can make it grow in its own direction. Differences in texture can be seen in examples of different types of love. Eg:- 

• Love for parents or children
• Love for a wife or girlfriend
• Love for self
• Love for general others
• Love for something one does. etc...

WHICH POLITICAL AND IDEOLOGICAL POWER WOULD PROBABLY FORGE CONTINIUTIY PROBABLY UNTILL THE END

A political or Ideological power that may evolve to rule our planet until probably the end of time or until whatever change happens to us as humans would probably have to have the following qualities and of course a lot more.

• It has to be a system whose laws are extremely hard and almost impossible to break by anything or anyone or even by itself.
• Has to be a system which stands for the benefits of the majority, open for discussion, strictly mind over muscle, logical and inclusive.
• Has to be a system that is ever evolving to its betterment.
• Has to be strong enough to withstand problems, threats, rivalries, and have them under adequate control.
• Has to have a system that roots out problems and threats in their infancy.
• Has to forge acceptance by an overwhelming majority.
• Has to always be capable enough in power and in all areas that matter.
• Has to promote and seek peace as much as possible as a healthy person is one without a disease, a healthy system has to be at peace or has to have threats under total control.
• Has to always work on mindsets of the public.
• Has to always be economically stable or even way past that point.
• Has to roll with the times as much as possible.
• Has to be capable of benefiting the people in all aspects.
• Has to have satisfactory solutions for major and even minor problems.
• Has to be a system that has evolved for a long time.