5 ms·

I think he would find the philosophy on eternal reoccurrence and determinism helpful. I’m somewhat an atheist and find the two calming around existence & death.

I think he would find the philosophy on eternal reoccurrence and determinism helpful. I’m somewhat an atheist and find the two calming around existence & death. I wonder how so by his imagination of Einstein was rooted on his work or the ideology that god doesn’t roll dice.

solipsism 8y ago
You think a person who steeped himself in philosophy his entire life is unfamiliar with eternal recurrence (not "reoccurrence") and determinism? No. Such people are bound to die restless and unfulfilled. There's a class of people who need to know the answers to all questions. It strikes me as a sort of ADD (I mean it in the non-technical "I am not a shrink" way). I agree with the article that the answers to many questions are unattainable or unknowable. The trick as an atheist is to find peace with that. Some even satisfy their natural drive toward spiritualism with it.
- intralizee 8y ago
  No I didn't mean to create the impression he is unfamiliar with the two. The two are calming around existence & death for me because it makes me not strike an ADD as you put it. Also creating an natural drive towards spiritualism as you put it again. It's sort of funny you thought I wrote the comment assuming he never studied the two.
  - solipsism 8y ago
    I think he would find the philosophy on eternal reoccurrence and determinism helpful. This structure very clearly implies that he is unfamiliar with the two. Just as "I think you would like Brazil" implies the person has never been there. No big deal. I only mention it because "It's funny you thought" implies you don't realize your wording made this interpretation the obvious one. creating an natural drive I didn't put it that way. The natural drive is preexisting. That's sort of what the "natural" means.
    - intralizee 8y ago
      I agree with you and blame my lack of sleep. Learned something from you about what it means to refer to natural as well. :)
- Koshkin 8y ago
  Indeed - philosophy is similar to theology in that both have unattainable goals: Philosophers look for answers to questions for which there are no answers; theology studies that which does not exist.
  - tlb 8y ago
    Theology also studies how stories about things that don't exist affect people's thinking and beliefs. That part is grounded, interesting, and relevant. Having an unattainable goal is not a bad thing!
  - Satam 8y ago
    I'm often left a bit baffled and frustrated when atheists start off their arguments with coherent and interesting thoughts only to end, what could've been the start of a productive discussion, with snarky and childish remarks. I, for one, dabble in these questions out of genuine and innate curiosity and I believe others do too. Isn't it then counterproductive to deal in absolutes when the only thing we can be certain of is that we are still quite too ignorant to answer those ultimate questions? Maybe I am reading too much into your "theology studies that which does not exist", but, again, remarks like these are really off-putting. It is already almost impossible to find discussions in this area that take an exploratory and open-minded approach, and I'd hope that at least forums like these could be free of that.
    - solipsism 8y ago
      Sounds like you're expecting everyone to see eye to eye with you. The person you're responding to expressed how he or she sees things. The only person who seems to be trying to cut off certain lines of conversation is you.
      - Satam 8y ago
        I don't think you're being fair here. Although it is possible that the person did not write the comment in the disingenuous way in which I perceived it, I am not willing to regard him as so naive. Importantly, it is not the opinion itself which I find off-putting - it's the way in which it is conveyed. It was neither insightful nor did it encourage any meaningful discussion... No, I'd go further: consciously or unconsciously its only purpose was to reaffirm the author's pre-existing convictions and to put down those of others. I also understand why my comment could come off as trying to cut off certain lines of conversation as well, but the only reason why I am even getting frustrated about this is because I want to have MORE of those honest conversations about these seemingly controversial topics; it doesn't matter to me which way they lead me. I believe that the "ultimate" questions have value in them that is not necessarily tied to them being answered, at the very least in the same way the exercise is good for one's body - I hope you would agree here as well. Unfortunately, most of the time, it is quite hard to find balanced online discussions which would bring an exploratory and open mindset to these questions; instead, they're usually quickly bombarded with dogmatic responses - an example of which I'm now ranting about.
BadThink6655321 8y ago
I disagree. He wants to know, as much as is possible, what is true. He isn’t interested in a philosophical placebo.
- intralizee 8y ago
  Well it depends on what he believes truly benefits himself in the end. I guess a person can refer to anything as a placebo if used to change oneself.

solipsism 8y ago

You think a person who steeped himself in philosophy his entire life is unfamiliar with eternal recurrence (not "reoccurrence") and determinism? No. Such people are bound to die restless and unfulfilled. There's a class of people who need to know the answers to all questions. It strikes me as a sort of ADD (I mean it in the non-technical "I am not a shrink" way). I agree with the article that the answers to many questions are unattainable or unknowable. The trick as an atheist is to find peace with that. Some even satisfy their natural drive toward spiritualism with it.

intralizee 8y ago
No I didn't mean to create the impression he is unfamiliar with the two. The two are calming around existence & death for me because it makes me not strike an ADD as you put it. Also creating an natural drive towards spiritualism as you put it again. It's sort of funny you thought I wrote the comment assuming he never studied the two.
- solipsism 8y ago
  I think he would find the philosophy on eternal reoccurrence and determinism helpful. This structure very clearly implies that he is unfamiliar with the two. Just as "I think you would like Brazil" implies the person has never been there. No big deal. I only mention it because "It's funny you thought" implies you don't realize your wording made this interpretation the obvious one. creating an natural drive I didn't put it that way. The natural drive is preexisting. That's sort of what the "natural" means.
  - intralizee 8y ago
    I agree with you and blame my lack of sleep. Learned something from you about what it means to refer to natural as well. :)
Koshkin 8y ago
Indeed - philosophy is similar to theology in that both have unattainable goals: Philosophers look for answers to questions for which there are no answers; theology studies that which does not exist.
- tlb 8y ago
  Theology also studies how stories about things that don't exist affect people's thinking and beliefs. That part is grounded, interesting, and relevant. Having an unattainable goal is not a bad thing!
- Satam 8y ago
  I'm often left a bit baffled and frustrated when atheists start off their arguments with coherent and interesting thoughts only to end, what could've been the start of a productive discussion, with snarky and childish remarks. I, for one, dabble in these questions out of genuine and innate curiosity and I believe others do too. Isn't it then counterproductive to deal in absolutes when the only thing we can be certain of is that we are still quite too ignorant to answer those ultimate questions? Maybe I am reading too much into your "theology studies that which does not exist", but, again, remarks like these are really off-putting. It is already almost impossible to find discussions in this area that take an exploratory and open-minded approach, and I'd hope that at least forums like these could be free of that.
  - solipsism 8y ago
    Sounds like you're expecting everyone to see eye to eye with you. The person you're responding to expressed how he or she sees things. The only person who seems to be trying to cut off certain lines of conversation is you.
    - Satam 8y ago
      I don't think you're being fair here. Although it is possible that the person did not write the comment in the disingenuous way in which I perceived it, I am not willing to regard him as so naive. Importantly, it is not the opinion itself which I find off-putting - it's the way in which it is conveyed. It was neither insightful nor did it encourage any meaningful discussion... No, I'd go further: consciously or unconsciously its only purpose was to reaffirm the author's pre-existing convictions and to put down those of others. I also understand why my comment could come off as trying to cut off certain lines of conversation as well, but the only reason why I am even getting frustrated about this is because I want to have MORE of those honest conversations about these seemingly controversial topics; it doesn't matter to me which way they lead me. I believe that the "ultimate" questions have value in them that is not necessarily tied to them being answered, at the very least in the same way the exercise is good for one's body - I hope you would agree here as well. Unfortunately, most of the time, it is quite hard to find balanced online discussions which would bring an exploratory and open mindset to these questions; instead, they're usually quickly bombarded with dogmatic responses - an example of which I'm now ranting about.

BadThink6655321 8y ago

I disagree. He wants to know, as much as is possible, what is true. He isn’t interested in a philosophical placebo.

intralizee 8y ago
Well it depends on what he believes truly benefits himself in the end. I guess a person can refer to anything as a placebo if used to change oneself.