False Hope or No Hope.?.

Re: False Hope or No Hope.?.

Sorry for the double-post, but I literally couldn't fit everything into a 10000 limit... :p

If you haven't read it, I posted something right before this one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by basilisk888

well taking this from a pessimist point of view (myself) I would say this is not always the case... i would not say that I have no hope, but I just choose to not believe in hope in witch I think could never happen?

Being a pessimist doesn't mean you don't have hope. One can have hope and still be a pessimist.

But choosing to not believing in hope is similar to having no hope on whatever it is you don't choose to believe in. Choosing to be blind is similar to actually being blind.
But in your point of view, you actually have a chance for seeing things for what they are on one end - but refuse that chance maybe because you don't see anything good coming out of it.

Quote:

Yes, and no. It is better to not go though life (in the world we live in) naively but it is also true if you go to far without false hope then you'll stop living (depression, ect.). So live with false hope but not to much false hope ^_^ (false to true)

So in this sense, it's a sense of balance. Which is very true.
However, there is a sense of contradictory within this theory:

One cannot live life fully when one never believes in the possibility of actual good.
At the same time, one is not safe from the dangers of life if they were to believe everything were good.

But where, perchance, do the bad things come from?
Just circumstance? An actual "evil"? Nature's course? Or perhaps mankind itself?

From my gf's point of view: Even if things get bad, you can always make it better.
From my point of view: Things can get better, but many people refuse it from happening.

In essence: Wouldn't the reason these bad things happen to us and stay as a weight, be because of our own actions? We love to blame other things, but if my gf's words have any merit: Bad things are as bad as we make them to be. And not just individually, but I think as a whole all our beliefs, lack-of-beliefs, restrictions, freedoms, and etc affect each other completely.
We could be working together to make a better tomorrow, but many refuse to work as "there's no hope", many refuse the better tomorrow but decide to work anyway, and many more just work for a better tomorrow but have a lack of faith in it.

In that sense, those who completely believe in no hope could be doing two things: Standing still and never helping others - content with complaining, or helping others but not ever believing it will really achieve the goal that was intended (which, if they died before seeing the completion of the goal, would find themselves empty in death).

Re: False Hope or No Hope.?.

Quote:

Ah, but one can also say "The person with false hope lived the same fruitful life as the one with no hope". In that sense, both lived and died happily, but one obtained a sense of enlightenment.
Even if it were false, does it matter in the end?

Enlighten: to give the light of fact and knowledge to; free from ignorance, prejudice, or superstition;

Ok, with that being said we can say they both got a sense of enlightenment... One just chose to go in a more shaded path, so to speak, if we say that living with false hope has a path with more light.

Quote:

Side-tracked by what exactly? In a world with no hope at all: There's no such thing as distractions -- as there's nothing to obtain from focus.
While the adventure is fun, the goal is the only thing that needs focus. And without a complete goal, there's no real reason to not be side-tracked.

In a world of no hope, one should find happiness in all that they do - live it up before they die it down. Distractions are key in this sense.

Side-tracked, by the belief in false securities... Lets say that hope is something we as humans fabricated within our minds to make everyday living livable... A security blanket, so to speak... Like I heard people say before without hope, then what is the point in living... In which I also believe without hope, it will be a dim future... Our conscience won't let us accept things as they are so we develop a will of hope that goes along with our will of knowledge, will of power....

Quote:

Hope isn't a tool to change things, it is a tool to push one to change things.

I agree totally!!!

Quote:

Nothing is gained from "kind of believing". One doesn't attain anything or dodge anything.
They can die knowing "they kind of knew", but all that will let them do is see the truth at the end without ever attaining it.

Ok, I really didn't want to go down this road... Let us say there is a person who doesn't believe in the whole religion thing, but does believe there is a higher power and a force of evil out there, isn't that kind of believing??? And if you believe or not or just kind of, everyone of them are gaining some peace of mind in their consciousness... No matter how self-centered, vain & bias thinking, ignorant, naive, etc.. it may seem or be... It is their form of peace of mind, right??? In the end I am a person who believes that the truth reveals itself in death.

Quote:

A realist may accept things with their knowledge, but they deny their emotional reaction

.

Ok, I get what you are saying, I think, help me out, if not... For example you are saying a realist believes that a murderer killed the victim cause they are a bad person, but won't believe that their emotions made them commit the crime. It might be a bad example cause I am not fully understanding...

Man I am enjoying this discussion with you cause I love your insight, point of view on this whole ordeal and yea' I know I knit-picked through some of your response, but I agree with much on what you had to say & I really want to get back with the response on the whole watcher, judge, guardian talk... It is just you replied back with great force "Young Skywalker"...lol *j/k* But for real my time is running short, til next time...

*I would aslo like to hear anyone else views on this, if you agree with Soshi or not or if you want to add anything feel free to join on the conversation... ^_^

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuruto

Enlighten: to give the light of fact and knowledge to; free from ignorance, prejudice, or superstition;

The problem with using definitions, is that words have their own meanings to each and every single person. While they may have power, it's people that give them that power.
Sticking to definitions means to stick to the "standardization" of language and agreement. ...which doesn't really work for a person like me, who liked the days where illiteracy allowed words to be used and changed freely -- as people spoke from what they thought was right, rather than trying to fool the other.

In this sense, enlightenment to me means a profound moment in one's life where "Everything makes sense." Logically and/or spiritually.
In the logical sense, a person could be enlightened that "because there is no hope, there is no need".
And if there is no need, then there is no true consequence.

Quote:

Ok, with that being said we can say they both got a sense of enlightenment... One just chose to go in a more shaded path, so to speak, if we say that living with false hope has a path with more light.

No hope and false hope in this sense is: one finding a path of darkness in the world of light, and one finding a path of light in the world of darkness.
Where light is falsehood, the shade is protection.
Where darkness is certain destruction, the light is the ray of hope.

While it is nice to stay in the safety of that shade, one could also be limiting one's self from all-truth. While it may be true that obtaining all forms of truth means also to obtain all forms of lies, a safe and structured lifestyle can only get one so far.

Safety and structure are indeed important in life, but most of what we have to this day was from stepping out of those safe boundaries.
If one wishes to live a life of simplicity, safety and structure aren't necessary - as safety and structure are there in a world of dangers, but no danger other than what's one earned is found in a simple world.
If one wishes to live a life of excitement, safety and structure may be the only things keeping them alive - but it could be safer for them if they knew why there was danger in that world rather than hiding from it ignorantly.
If one wishes to live a life of complexity, safety and structure are everything to them. Walls within walls to keep the dangers of the outside out. A personal world created for their own freedom - has its constraints. While a homebase within a warzone is comforting, it is still within a warzone: The longer they stay bunkered down in that safety, the less is being done about the war.

Quote:

Side-tracked, by the belief in false securities... Lets say that hope is something we as humans fabricated within our minds to make everyday living livable... A security blanket, so to speak... Like I heard people say before without hope, then what is the point in living... In which I also believe without hope, it will be a dim future... Our conscience won't let us accept things as they are so we develop a will of hope that goes along with our will of knowledge, will of power....

Ah, but that is the sense of "acceptance", is it not?
Both sides, I mean. One side refuses to accept death, so they see life on the other side. One side accepts death, so they refuse life on the other side.
But if there is no other side, does that truly make them stronger?

Accepting death with nothing at the end means nothing.
Fighting death with nothing at the end can be considered dangerous, as one can easily lose sight of what is important.

However, as a side-note, realize this: Most of those who are believers of "life after death" are afraid of death more than those who don't believe in it.
Afterall, if we are to be judged on the otherside for our actions, many fear that they simply weren't "good enough" in this life. Which causes quite an annoying action of trying to "out-holy" others.
But that's neither here nor there, that's just human nature forming competition off of instinctual necessities of survival.

Let's get back on topic:
We often question if we make up many things in our own minds to keep ourselves sane and safe... we've questioned it so much that even our logical thoughts seem insane to one another.
Many seem bent on proving to others that believing in an afterlife means they're just scared of death and are trying to create a safety net for themselves in order to exist happily. However, what of those who don't care for these safety nets?

If I were to die and nothing came at the end, what does it matter?
Did I waste my life in false hope? Or did I live life the same as others did?
Every waking moment of my life is filled with thought and action, I'm constantly productive in my every day activities. Whether or not that means anything in the end - I don't care. I'm just productive. Whether that's instincts, wants, needs, genes, or whatever else taking over - I'm still doing it. My beliefs never prevented me from doing something or thinking something.
All it stopped me from doing is touching things that no one else should touch anyways (whether those certain actions conjure something truly unfathomable or whether its our own insanities that create them: They're real to the victim, and nothing good comes out of it in ANY sense).

But did it stop me from finding our discoveries in science truly amazing? Did it stop me from having a friendly conversation with one who had different or no beliefs? Did it stop me from listening to the arguments made by others against all beliefs? Not at all.
It prevented me from none of that.

I wasn't blinded by my own beliefs because I didn't need it as a safety net.
In fact, the greatest thing about my own beliefs: I don't need them at all to function.

My "false hope" stems from the very curiosity of how things function.
I've been exposed to things from all sides of the argument, and all honesty? I find no use in simply "believing in nothing".
It doesn't free up my time at all, it doesn't change in what I find is morally correct or incorrect, and it definitely doesn't give me more freedom.

Even if there were no afterlife, I still wouldn't do things that I don't do now. For me, I prevent myself from doing things that are illogical. Fear is logical, as it is an instinctual prevention system from getting one's self killed. Bravery is logical as well, as it is our abstract thought process wanting a reward in the end from overcoming a danger.
Complete neutrality, however, is illogical --- while it may be a safety measure for all sides of the party, nothing is gained from it. Safety is obtained, that is for sure - but safety from what? From something we have created?

Rather than setting up barriers between one another, rather than foolishly jumping over those barriers to prove/disprove something, rather than pretending like those barriers don't exist: We could USE those barriers to create something great.

Sorry again for this double-post as well. I went over the 10000 mark again! ^^; ...I'm not so good at shortening my thoughts.

Quote:

Ok, I really didn't want to go down this road... Let us say there is a person who doesn't believe in the whole religion thing, but does believe there is a higher power and a force of evil out there, isn't that kind of believing???

One doesn't need to believe in a religion in order to believe in something.
Religion is a structure we humans created out of faith (this is different from the faith I mentioned before in previous posts... this is closer to the definition of my gf's idea of faith - something unexplainably true).
Faith is an accumulation of our personal connection with something we can't seem to explain.

To me, here's how it goes: If the God we believed in were nothing but an enormously intelligent being who created us in a controlled environment --- would I worship that god or drop my beliefs?
Neither.
I still believe in a God beyond that one. BECAUSE of my exposure of other beliefs, BECAUSE of my exposure to the great world of science, BECAUSE of my logic - I believe in something that is beyond knowledge.
Logic is structured, formed, connected, and very much: Limited.
It is the restrictions of life that create logic, not the freedom.
For if it were freedom, language would not be necessary (all forms of communication are included in "language", including body language).

In a sense, logic seems to be created.
As something needed to start it.
It can keep going on forever as long as there's a problem and there's someone to solve it. However, it knows itself that it didn't birth itself.

They say necessity birthed it, but necessity wouldn't exist without the danger. And danger wouldn't exist without chaos (not the ooooo~ scary~ chaos~... but the idea that things are always in motion, never ending, never stopping, infinite).

And chaos forms no bounds, but makes sense when restricted to it.
Logic makes sense of chaos, but it doesn't control it.
For to control it, would mean becoming it.

I don't believe in a religion, but I respect it.
Religion is a powerful safety net for lost sheep, and it keeps them sane and safe - much like how staying in the shade does for those with no hope.
It's for those who can't think for themselves, or don't want to think for themselves.
Those who fear the answers as much as their questions are brave.

A religion was never necessary.
Almost all spiritual-beings that came down here according to our books and stories never proclaimed a name for our religions. We made them ourselves.
The rules and tales they gave us were warnings for our actions.
We refused responsibility, and they told us why it was necessary.
We took their words, wrote them down, changed it to our liking, used it to judge others, used it to judge ourselves, created walls with them, controlled countries with them, drove others with it... and we missed their points entirely.
Religion was born from those actions - to make sense of the chaos and responsibility. A science for the uncontrollable, given a name from the one that started their thoughts.

At the same time, I'm not a "spiritualist" in the terms of how many use that title these days.
I don't pretend like I know souls, I don't pretend I know full-well where my soul goes, and I definitely don't pretend I know everything there is to chakra/ki/chi/ether.
I do have confidence that they are there, as they are vital links to existence that science refuses to touch as it wishes to be the only answer.

...science is just a part of the answer, a logical structure to make sense of a universe in chaos. It reads out the fine prints and blueprints of life, the lines and formations, the connection of this and that -- yet it fails to go beyond the physicality. It can't explain anything in moral terms. As "bad for your health" or "bad for their health" is the best advice it can give us.
It also can't seem to explain anything beyond physicality other than "a hoax".

Look into anything where a science committee (or individual) truly did try to explain something truly unphysical. Usually they did this by facing the "unexplainable". ...do you ever read anything about this from a science book? Or a research paper?
No, mostly due to the fact that many scientists who have debunked these "unexplainables" often let their own physical-beliefs judge what they see in front of them - writing it off as fake without enough explanation or thorough testing, running away from the intangible and claiming it's a hoax to save their own face, never writing about it as they fear they may be discredited in their society, and the ever-famous: Writing about it, then being declared insane or a quack --- and having their writings destroyed or completely ignored.

While it may be true there are thousands (if not millions and billions) of these hoaxes created from superstition, wanting attention, and paranoia. There are real events that can't go ignored.

...yet we ignore them anyways, pretend they don't exist - and feed the public more scientific knowledge in the hopes that doing so will make it go away.

Quote:

And if you believe or not or just kind of, everyone of them are gaining some peace of mind in their consciousness... No matter how self-centered, vain & bias thinking, ignorant, naive, etc.. it may seem or be... It is their form of peace of mind, right???

Peace of mind means nothing if the mind never had a question for an answer.

One can live in a life of peace and comfort without any beliefs. One doesn't NEED "irrational" beliefs. "NEEDING" beliefs is a mockery to both logic and belief.

However, one can WANT more than just peace and comfort.
The problem is, many of us are unprepared for the answers we find... there's a lie in every truth, and a truth in every lie.
What we take and preach is what we've seen ourselves, and no one else could see what each of us see.
It's the beauty and sadness of structure: We cannot share it unless we find a way to go beyond these mortal bounds. And in my belief, all things are connected to one another. ALL THINGS. Even nothingness has its connection with everything. The only thing stopping us from that intangible connection to everything, is our own restrictions.
Even seeing freedom is a restriction if it wasn't the real freedom.

Wanting more than peace and comfort... that curiosity...
It can truly give us infinite answers. And all answers could be true as well as they are false.

Often times, we pick up the answer we find first: Which is the worst thing to do. We shouldn't ever settle for a single answer, as the only thing that's definitive within these infinite answers, is that there's an infinite amount of them.

One has to feel out the answer that consume all the answers... it can't be broken down like science, as it's not many parts. It is indeed complex, but it has no structure or form.
It simply: is.

In Western philosophy, they break down ideas to explain them... Example: a flower is made of a stem, sepal, ovule, pistil, stamen, and petal.

In Eastern philosophy, they say you can't break down ideas to explain them - as they wouldn't be what they are when apart. An example: a flower is a flower. A flower is not a stem, sepal, ovule, pistil, stamen, and petal. A stem is a stem, a sepal is a sepal, ovule is ovule, pistil is pistil, stamen is stamen, and petal is a petal... but a flower... is a flower.

The only way to find an answer within those infinite answers, is to study it with a Western philosophy, and understand it with an Eastern philosophy.

Quote:

In the end I am a person who believes that the truth reveals itself in death.

Yet we live life to understand something before death.
Anyone can die.
But can we all truly live?

Quote:

For example you are saying a realist believes that a murderer killed the victim cause they are a bad person, but won't believe that their emotions made them commit the crime. It might be a bad example cause I am not fully understanding...

Not exactly.
What I am saying, as rude as it may sound, is that realists are just as blind as those in denial. They say they know what's real, but refuse to budge from their spot. They say they know what's true, yet they're scared to look into what's false. How can one who knows what's real be afraid of what's out there?

A TRUE realist (and none in existence who are- use that term) would be unafraid of the unknown. Willing to search, as they know there's no end to it. Willing to try, as they know the dangers and prizes from it. Willing to believe beyond the mortal shackles, because they're ready for whatever truth or lie they find.