submitted by /u/TheOtherKinds [visit reddit] [comments ..read more

It's obvious to us our conscious is real. Our experience of existing is so deeply and clearly evident to us. I think all of the collective experiences of conscious beings eventually point to asking the question of what we even are and what is existence itself. Consciousness itself can't be defined, it has no weight or physical properties but it's ever present. Something that completely present but unobservable could be infinitely large or infinitely small or both at the same time. One of the limitations we commonly experience has to do with the nature of our macro universe and that is that ev ..read more

-by Swami BV Tripurari Vedānta maintains that denying that consciousness is causal is illogical. In Western philosophy such denial has been called a “performative contradiction.” This contradiction was mentioned earlier in our discussion of the jñānī’s notion of consciousness as primal, a notion that is shared by the yogī and the devotee. A performative contradiction is an instance when a claim is at odds with the presuppositions or implications of the act of claiming it. Such is the denial of a causal role to consciousness, for the very act of denying requires consciousness. David Ray Griffi ..read more

The truth is we are all one . A think veil of maya separates us from the Truth. Think about like this every computer has an OS , for us the OS is time and space within time and space are all of us actions ,feelings and thoughts recorded. Now as we strip away the maya of our subjective experience and see the objective reality , we will realize that essentially we are all one . An OS that runs in all of us the things that makes us conscious , the observing mind . But we can’t separate ourselves from our OS God is within us and is everywhere not as a personified being but as an OS or will that m ..read more

Hi everyone. I have recently become interested in the possibility of atheistic or non-theistic views that are neither traditionally theistic (of course) or a nihilistic form of atheism. Essentially, I want to look at and learn more about philosophical positions or metaphysical systems that reject both traditional theism and atheistic nihilism, arguing instead for (or simply developing) more normatively unique and metaphysically exotic forms of atheistic and non-theistic philosophical worldviews (such as not being specifically reductionistic, eliminativist, or nihilistic in a materialist manne ..read more

Hi everyone. I am still trying to come to terms with Arthur Schopenhauer’s metaphysical system (which seems to me to begin by building from Immanuel Kant’s transcendental idealism). The “Will” is clearly of the highest importance for Schopenhauer’s entire philosophy. From my understanding so far, Schopenhauer believed that this Will was eternal, transcendent, singular, a-causal, non-spatial, non-temporal, impersonal and irrational. It would seem then that all the multiplicity that we find in the world — between different objects and events (and even potentially different selves or miniature ..read more

submitted by /u/throwawayyyuhh [visit reddit] [comments ..read more

I'd like to start by saying that it's only been a few months that I'm researching and learning about free will. It mainly started out of me not wanting there to be no free will. I have no problem in believing something which has no definite proof and taking a leap of faith but I do have a problem in taking a leap of faith to believe in something that makes no sense. For example if I want to believe in flat earth no matter how much I try I could never take a leap of faith because it obviously doesn't make sense and isn't true. My belief in free will is that our choices are influenced by past e ..read more

1) I know facts about the future 2) if I know facts about the future, either I have epistemic access to the future or future facts entail my present mental state 3) if future facts entail my present mental state, determinism is true 4) from 1, 2 and 3: either I have epistemic access to the future or determinism is true 5) if I have epistemic access to the future, naturalism is false 6) naturalism is true 7) from 4, 5 and 6: determinism is true. Personally, I reject the first premise, but I think all the assumptions are dubious. Does anyone find the argument persuasive? submitted by /u/ughaib ..read more

submitted by /u/DIFierce [visit reddit] [comments ..read more