Image courtesy of Nate Hill, https://www.natehillphotography.com.au/
treadmill theory of consciousness: why motion may be an illusion
"should i lull myself, or make a cup of coffee?"
the points you made in the vegan debate with sriram
action is life affirming
perhaps truth may be a self fulfilling prophecy. there may be no fact that being is good- but the act of believing in it makes my life and the life's of others better, more optimistic. this begs the question- or two questions- 1) is it okay to delude oneself if it leads to be a better life- just like how god perhaps deluded himself in order to escape from being god and 2) does the fact that a belief leads to a better outcome make that belief true?
We search for truth with the faith that it is instrincily good, not evil, that it leads to better outcomes, and the flourishing of consciousness and wellbeing,
Hence why we pursue maths, etc. there is also an instrinistic joy in the process of discovery itself. Of achievement. Maybe that, as an abstract concept, itself is a truth.
Why does there appear to be an underlying principale that truth is ONE? And that theree is is only one truth? Why can’t there be two? If I extract out the truth of 1+1=2, and 2+2=4, both statements are true speratly, but mathematically, the first equation is embedded within the second,
As if there is some sort of nest of sorts.
The idea that deterministic philosophers ay theres no free will, what comes with that is them usually saying why thats actually 1)an instrinstic wquality of being and 2) knowing this fact (or having an awareness of it) leads to the flourishing of wellbeing - sam Harris talks about this, how his assertions of non self and non freewill, and its understanding, can lead to the flourishing of wellbeing (no regret, etc).
Theres never a philosopher who has a side of an argument that says that his argument is true, and it actually makes people who have this awareness WORSE off.
Philosophy in this universe appears to be operating under the assumption of love and that truth is just. For example, when asked why do we grow old and die and why things are impermanent- philosophers say that it’s because then we wouldn’t be as appreciative of the fleeting moments if things were permanent. That is to say, philosophy seems to make seemingly bad things good. But what if we challenge this default assumption? What if there’s an alternate universe in which babies suffer greatly, and that the reason was because “it’s because it leads to pain and fear”, and then that’s the default answer that leads to truth? What if that’s this universe?
- convo with sriram
existence being “good” doesn't have to be an attribute or a trait of existence . it is simply a self-referential affirmation of itself. how every action an affirmation for existence.
in a satirical sense -this everything you do saves your life. me eating pizza saved my life. chipotle saved my life.
every action you do that is not suicide is an affirmation that it is better to be than not be.