The only thing that makes us necessary is that we already exist
[quote]...it is hard to have a positive attitude about philosophy if you see almost all existing philosophy as wrongheaded.[/quote]
And then we can assume then if you were going to play it like that, you might like to start over fresh. To eliminate inconsistencies, tear the entire history of philosophy out of the window and look at the light beyond it. But, if we do this, we are finding something substantially different than philosophy. In that case we should call it something else.
Personally, I do find philosophy to be tedious and wrongheaded. In fact, I have a poor attitude about it, and may not enjoy my existentialism course this semester. What I would like to do is to create something that is distinct from philosophy, however...
The mind itself is a reflection of the biology. In an imperfect biology we have an imperfect mind(much more the cases for animals and lesser humans, whether it be a genetic defect or environment impairment). This being the case, our philosophies which are manifestations of thought reflecting biological structures cannot be perfect. They can be highly accurate within their biological origins, however.
But they cannot answer the question of God, or of existence. The reason being is that we are fundamentally prevented from discovering perfection... to us perfection would be an end to aging. An end to aging would be God like, but it would also fundamentally change who we are as humans.
Let's pause to consider the implication of an end to aging. First, cells would have to be preventing from mutating. Thus, preventing change is the key to finding God and ending uncertainty. What would our biological structures do if they could not mutate? Already I consider this idea to be impossible, as change is inevitable in all things existing, given forces acting upon objects for as long as there are objects and as long as there are objects(both co-exist indefinitely). But, this lack of change would be constant, it would be perfection simply because it was unchanging, and therefore definite, sustaining, and enviable.
Humans hate change, and we hate that we are no better than any other biological structure.
Now, I have a theory on the origin of biology. I think a lot can happen in billions of years, I wouldn't know, but we can assume. Organic materials are made of the elements. At some point organisms came about from the collaboration of the elements. The elements before them came about from a collaboration of primordial substances consisting of strictly forces. These forces were always acting on each other, as they had no other choice. Thus, objects are simply pieces of substance being acting upon by other pieces of substance.
Now, forces acting upon forces is an interesting concept. But let's get back to the inevitability of change and it's explicit cooperation with the human biology. After all, thoughts wouldn't be possible without change? An electron fires off a synapse, reaching a neuron, creating a sensation which is registered in the brain. Through language, we interpret this change. The distortion of imperfect language hinders even more so the imperfection of this sensation in addresses the search for an unchanging Truth.
Would it be possible to allow an element of change, while keeping consistent the basis for all change? Yes, but this would eliminate memory, and even more importantly it would eliminate time. In fact, it would eliminate the need for anything and everything, the need for nothing, and it would be what we consider God. Considering that these factors are not at all reality, I can conclude that there is no such thing as God.
So why do we search for God? The answer is simple, we strive to find a moment in time where we can stay forever. We wish to do away with time, for time is our enemy of the highest regulation. Time is a strictly biological concept, it is the recollection and admission of changes within organic systems. Time existed before humans, but it did not exist before sentience.
Time and aging are synonymous, God is an alien concept, there is no such thing as Truth so far as the human being is concerned, what do all of these things mean?
Philosophy will never accomplish anything if it is not practical. Here we see religions creating rituals of purification of the body, time management and goal setting to optimize our responses to the non-sentient environment, wars fought over resources... Most of all what philosophy does is motivate us to be sentient. This, of course, is a natural extension of the sentience itself, which, in lower animals, is a rejection of and response to pain. Our pain is mental. We have advanced further than Necessary, by this I mean that we could just as well still be experiencing solely physical pain.
Perhaps and I think one would find this within themselves if they pondered, there is no such thing as mental pain, only the rejection of physical pain.
Mental anguish is simply a reflection of oxidation process and change occurring within a biological system. Therefore, all thought is change on the molecular level, all pain is the recognition of hostile change in the environment to the organism as a whole. God is the nothingness that stands between sentience and non-existence of an entity. If we choose to give human characteristics to this God, it is only if these characteristics become practical in that they motivate us to live that God is a good thing. Then, God did not help us but we merely helped ourselves by harnessing our biological systems.
The nothingness of God is inside of us... it is the recognition of change and death. Call it nothingness if you wish or reject this label, it is no matter. God is merely a biological abstraction, just as thought is, and in culmination so is philosophy.
In conclusion, philosophy is only important if we want it to be, or perhaps in the case of some biological structures the absolute urge to NEED it to be overwhelms a balance and forces the need for philosophical thought. I suggest that this is a habituated response of the body to previous thoughts. It becomes an intuition.
We are creatures of habit. The fact of the matter is, we and this false concept of time as passing from what is not yet, to what is now but will soon not be, to what no longer is, and this is our existence. No philosophy in the world will change this fact, but if it helps ease our physical or mental anguish then there is no harm in it, even if we use our philosophy to harm others. Our nature is that we first satisfy our own thoughts.
Now in society, you must control an individual because populations are not cohesive by nature. Thus, generally philosophies which constitute harm onto others are not seen in the general populace, only in the safe escape of the Masses and in powerful men. Nowhere on earth will philosophy, good or bad, extinguish, so long as a human being is sentient.
And then we can assume then if you were going to play it like that, you might like to start over fresh. To eliminate inconsistencies, tear the entire history of philosophy out of the window and look at the light beyond it. But, if we do this, we are finding something substantially different than philosophy. In that case we should call it something else.
Personally, I do find philosophy to be tedious and wrongheaded. In fact, I have a poor attitude about it, and may not enjoy my existentialism course this semester. What I would like to do is to create something that is distinct from philosophy, however...
The mind itself is a reflection of the biology. In an imperfect biology we have an imperfect mind(much more the cases for animals and lesser humans, whether it be a genetic defect or environment impairment). This being the case, our philosophies which are manifestations of thought reflecting biological structures cannot be perfect. They can be highly accurate within their biological origins, however.
But they cannot answer the question of God, or of existence. The reason being is that we are fundamentally prevented from discovering perfection... to us perfection would be an end to aging. An end to aging would be God like, but it would also fundamentally change who we are as humans.
Let's pause to consider the implication of an end to aging. First, cells would have to be preventing from mutating. Thus, preventing change is the key to finding God and ending uncertainty. What would our biological structures do if they could not mutate? Already I consider this idea to be impossible, as change is inevitable in all things existing, given forces acting upon objects for as long as there are objects and as long as there are objects(both co-exist indefinitely). But, this lack of change would be constant, it would be perfection simply because it was unchanging, and therefore definite, sustaining, and enviable.
Humans hate change, and we hate that we are no better than any other biological structure.
Now, I have a theory on the origin of biology. I think a lot can happen in billions of years, I wouldn't know, but we can assume. Organic materials are made of the elements. At some point organisms came about from the collaboration of the elements. The elements before them came about from a collaboration of primordial substances consisting of strictly forces. These forces were always acting on each other, as they had no other choice. Thus, objects are simply pieces of substance being acting upon by other pieces of substance.
Now, forces acting upon forces is an interesting concept. But let's get back to the inevitability of change and it's explicit cooperation with the human biology. After all, thoughts wouldn't be possible without change? An electron fires off a synapse, reaching a neuron, creating a sensation which is registered in the brain. Through language, we interpret this change. The distortion of imperfect language hinders even more so the imperfection of this sensation in addresses the search for an unchanging Truth.
Would it be possible to allow an element of change, while keeping consistent the basis for all change? Yes, but this would eliminate memory, and even more importantly it would eliminate time. In fact, it would eliminate the need for anything and everything, the need for nothing, and it would be what we consider God. Considering that these factors are not at all reality, I can conclude that there is no such thing as God.
So why do we search for God? The answer is simple, we strive to find a moment in time where we can stay forever. We wish to do away with time, for time is our enemy of the highest regulation. Time is a strictly biological concept, it is the recollection and admission of changes within organic systems. Time existed before humans, but it did not exist before sentience.
Time and aging are synonymous, God is an alien concept, there is no such thing as Truth so far as the human being is concerned, what do all of these things mean?
Philosophy will never accomplish anything if it is not practical. Here we see religions creating rituals of purification of the body, time management and goal setting to optimize our responses to the non-sentient environment, wars fought over resources... Most of all what philosophy does is motivate us to be sentient. This, of course, is a natural extension of the sentience itself, which, in lower animals, is a rejection of and response to pain. Our pain is mental. We have advanced further than Necessary, by this I mean that we could just as well still be experiencing solely physical pain.
Perhaps and I think one would find this within themselves if they pondered, there is no such thing as mental pain, only the rejection of physical pain.
Mental anguish is simply a reflection of oxidation process and change occurring within a biological system. Therefore, all thought is change on the molecular level, all pain is the recognition of hostile change in the environment to the organism as a whole. God is the nothingness that stands between sentience and non-existence of an entity. If we choose to give human characteristics to this God, it is only if these characteristics become practical in that they motivate us to live that God is a good thing. Then, God did not help us but we merely helped ourselves by harnessing our biological systems.
The nothingness of God is inside of us... it is the recognition of change and death. Call it nothingness if you wish or reject this label, it is no matter. God is merely a biological abstraction, just as thought is, and in culmination so is philosophy.
In conclusion, philosophy is only important if we want it to be, or perhaps in the case of some biological structures the absolute urge to NEED it to be overwhelms a balance and forces the need for philosophical thought. I suggest that this is a habituated response of the body to previous thoughts. It becomes an intuition.
We are creatures of habit. The fact of the matter is, we and this false concept of time as passing from what is not yet, to what is now but will soon not be, to what no longer is, and this is our existence. No philosophy in the world will change this fact, but if it helps ease our physical or mental anguish then there is no harm in it, even if we use our philosophy to harm others. Our nature is that we first satisfy our own thoughts.
Now in society, you must control an individual because populations are not cohesive by nature. Thus, generally philosophies which constitute harm onto others are not seen in the general populace, only in the safe escape of the Masses and in powerful men. Nowhere on earth will philosophy, good or bad, extinguish, so long as a human being is sentient.