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".