fringe_world

Here's a strain of thoughts I wrote down the other day. I would like someone to tell me what they think and perhaps identify errors in my reasoning. As the title suggests, the point of the article is to think of how one can go about living their life to the fulllest. Also, I didn't know if I should put this under "Ethics" or not, but I put it here under "Psychology and Self Improvement" because I wrote this to better think about how to live my life and improve it. *Some things to take into note: I would just like to say that every time I use a 'religious word' (such as "holy", "Seraph", "evil") it is a metaphor (in fact, I'm a person who uses metaphores a lot!). "Seraph" and "holy" are words that are synonyms, to me, which simply mean or imply that someone is "much greater than I" or that something is "right". "Evil" is the opposite of "holy", meaning/being a synonym for "much worst than I" or "wrong". However, what is "wrong" is relative to the individual. For example, if an English officer were to have cut off the head of kneeling French officer during the war between G.B. and France for Canada, that would be wrong. However, as portrayed in The Last Samurai, it was the right thing to do in Japan at that period in time. Evil and goodness are relative. Neither truly exist, not, at least, from my philosophical view point (except in the mind or "soul"). What does it mean to live life to the fullest, to me? What's the essential rule to which to live by, that makes for an excellent life? No doubt that a good life is wonderful enough, but a truly amazing life, the only life I assume we have, how can I live it to the fullest? First I should get to know what a good life is. I would say that I know what it is, because I've learned about it in philosophy class. But, how well do I understand the notion? The idea that a good life is lived through being a good person. What does a good person worship? Goodness and truth. A good life is lived in a good and true way. What then, is goodness? What is truth? Goodness, is the opposite of what is wrong (or evil), is it not? So to live a good life, is to live a life without evil. How does one do so? By doing what is not evil. How can you know what is right? Well, maybe, as Socrates believed, we cannot know anything until we know what we do not know. I know that I know nothing of death. Does this make killing wrong or right? I no longer really know any more (obviously I won't kill!). I believe that killing is wrong, but for what reason, I do not know. I believe that everyone deserves the chance to live, but what is more holy, living or being among the dead? How can you say, if you've never been dead. Perhaps there is a heaven, and that heaven admits all. Perhaps not. Perhaps there is nothing. Perhaps there is hell. I know nothing of death... I do know that to kill is to be violent. Violence is to force someone (or something, such as an animal) to do something which he/she/it does not want to do. Forced action is violence. Forced action is to rob someone of choice. And so, killing is something that I should not do, for to kill is to be violent, and to be violent is to rob choice from another. To live, under the human condition, is to live by the choices we have; the choices we make. To be violent is to remove that liberty of choice, that thing that defines (in part) living as a human being (or in other words, to try to deny someone of their humanity). But because someone has no choice, because, for example, a slave is a slave, does this mean that the slave is inhuman and the master is more human? The slave is indeed a human, such a condition does not render the victim inhuman, but it renders the guilty man/woman less humane. Why would a soul be less humane for it's suffering? Please, someone, if you know the answer to this, reply. And so, what does it mean if one soul causes harm or violence to another soul? It means that one of the souls has caused harm. To cause harm is not right, for how can it be? To cause harm, is to do wrong and to do wrong is evil. To be violent, in any way at all, is to be evil. And so, a soul which causes evil/harm or wrong-doing, is an evil soul. To kill is to deprive someone of choice, it is to be violent, it is to cause harm, it is to be evil. What about war? Well, there is one reason I can loudly proclaim why I do not join the army reserves. Why would I want to harm another human being? Because our countries are at war? Things do get complicated... And so, are there ever any good reasons to cause harm to another? For self-defence, for example? We live by the choices we make. Some choices are evil and in so doing them, we 'damn' our souls. However, in war you kill a life, and in so doing, save another. Who is to say which life is worth more than another? Who can judge? If there is a God who judges, surely That Being can [judge]. Humans, I believe, are not in a position to judge who's life is worth more than another. No, I do not condemn the body-guard. He/She has chosen a path. The path to protect and in so doing is a martyr to what they believe in. And so, doesn't it boil down to beliefs? Everything we do, we do because we believe something. In this sense, to me not even the atheist is an atheist, for does he/she not believe something? He/She believes that there is no God. This is a belief. To have a belief, a true belief, is to be zealous towards it. Anyone can create their own creed. I am zealous towards nothing, but bettering myself through wisedom, if ever I might be wise...if such a thing is attainable. The atheist believes in no gods/God. This alone is a belief which he/she holds dear. This is his/her creed, or at least the basis for it. No one desires to be 'damned'. Yes, some have a desire to harm others, but it is not in the name of damnation. Their beliefs, or mental state, has a disposition towards something which might otherwise be concidered immoral but at heart, they do not recognise or entertain the idea of moralities. And so, to them, there is no such thing as damnation, for they do not believe in it. Is not the mad man/woman acquitted because his basis of judgement is not sound and it is not his/her fault? He/She is indeed acquitted and 'corrected' so that they may come to know something about morals. To teach something is to make someone believe in something. To acquit and correct is to make believe and turn a true atheist into the believer of something. Sometimes that something is themself, at other times it is morals and/or values. What I mean to say is, is that the only atheist is a crazy person. The seat of judgement is belief. That is my point. Does this make it alright to harm another if you believe, truly believe, that goodness will come of it? I believe so. In this way is the soldier pure. Even the zealous nazi. However, to harm for pleasure, is not the same as harming out of belief (and so, this is what makes the zealous nazi impure, a wrong-doer). Beliefs can vary, this is the cause of wars. Would the world be a politically better place if we all believed the same thing? Most probably. Would it be a better place to live? Perhaps not. Imagine that all the world believed in nazi fasicm. The world would then be at peace, but only once it was "cleansed" of other races, particularly the jews. Sameness is not the best thing, if you ask me. Perhaps goodness will not prevail as believed by some, but at least in this world of differences, it stands a chance. What goodness truly is, I do not know. I say it is alright to cause harm to another, if you believe in your cause, but Ghandi was a much greater man than I, for he refused this notion utterly. The U.S. government both agrees (in war) and dissagrees with me (with matters concerning terrorists). But I do not care about what America thinks. I think that what you do is right if you believe that what you are doing will give birth to goodness and not evil (assuming that you are not mad). I once read somewhere (actually, it was in the war movie Tears of the Sun): "The only thing required for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." This is both my belief and the belief portrayed by Western mainstream. However, this forces me to call the terrorist a freedom fighter. I cannot condemn Oussama Bin Laden. I do not approve of his actions. I do not know much about the actions he took, and ordered at the exception that he truly believes in what he does. He is a smart man to be able to lead so many people. Many would condemn me for my thoughts, however, I disagree with his actions. You see, I hold nothing against him for his beliefs(but then again, this is not so hard for me as I have not directly suffered from his orders), however, I still dissaprove of his use of violence. Oussama Bin Laden has an evil soul for he has taken evil action. I would admire him, should he have taken a much more socially stunning action, such as affecting the mainstream media in a harmless way. If he did that, I would admire him. And so with this have I contradicted myself. So now allow me to correct my thoughts. Harm done to another is only right when done out of dire need. The French soldier who stood up next to DuGaulle in World War II is good, in that he defended what he believed in because if he did not, it would perish. Oussama Bin Laden, according to me, has an evil soul, for he did not need to kill anyone to pass his message. He needed only to talk. One might argue, perhaps a freedom fighter under his command might argue, that he tried to talk to the politicians. Do not speak to the politicians. Speak to the people. This is the right of all citizens of the West. Oussama is powerful and could have had a great many men (and women, if he so chose) to speak out. He did not do this. To commit such an act of violence was not necessary. I condemn his actions, but not his beliefs. He is a good man only because he fights to protect that which he believes in and is thus a freedom fighter. He has a tainted soul for doing what was not necessary. For doing what was not necessary (from my point of view), for that alone is he evil. But, if America had attacked him, the right would be his to retaliate. And so I conclude. What is goodness? Good is done with goodness as the objective. A good soul has goodness aimed in his/her scope/sight. You may be good and do whatever you believe you must do to create and give birth to goodness and remain good, even if this involves harming another. What is evil? To harm another when it is not required to do so in order to give birth to goodness. What about truth? What is it to be true? To not be true is to not lie. To not lie to whom? To others as well as yourself. Why is it important not to lie to others? Because it does them harm. Why is it important not to lie to yourself? Because you do yourself harm. I may, and may not chose to push my thoughts on concerning this matter and write them down (in fact, chances are that I'll think of what truth is, but not write it down in my journal). But this has not answered the most important question: what does it mean to live life to the fullest? This has only answered: what makes a good soul? (the answer being goodness and truth) So...what does it mean to live life to it's fullest? Perhaps it is to be good and true to yourself first and for most. This might sound selfish, but concider this: Who does the most harm, the man who has not taken care of his mind, or the man who takes care of his mind? Only by chance does the man who has not taken care of his mind do any good, for he does not know what good is, does he? How can he, for a mad man, a man who is completly mad, can be like an animal. Animals, one might argue, are not evil. However, this does not mean that they are pure. No, not everyone is pure of soul. Hardly anyone is, but to try to be pure of soul is much better than to not try to be pure of soul. And so, in this way can the soul which attempts to be pure be seen as pure to others, or at least more pure than they. I'm sure that Ghandi did some bad things in his life. It is foolish and blind to assume otherwise. However, he did, and tried to do, many more pure things than I. In this way is he a Seraph in comparison with me. In this way is Ghandi a holy man in comparison with I. And so what does it mean to me to live life to the fullest? To try to be the best and most holy creature that you can be, by first being good to yourself. The purpose of being good to oneself is not to be selfish, but to find goodness in the self and let it grow like a tree of pure white light until it touches all whom you meet. I am not pure. I am a fool. Does this make my thoughts foolish? No, they are a fool's thoughts, but perhaps they are not foolish thoughts. Are they wise thoughts. Maybe, maybe not, but that answer is best answered as such: "They are only foolish or wise in comparison with the thoughts of another." As Ghandi was (or is!) a greater soul than I, my thoughts can be wiser than some other thoughts. And so I end this entry by stating this for now: To live one's life to the fullest is to be true and good to the self first of all so that you can then be good and true to others. You are your own school.

Hello all, the user name's fringe world. First of all, I would like to say that I was a bit suprised to see that there are many threads for all of the different introductions, as I've been on a forum before and we just had one thread for the many introductions. What can I say about myself? I'm French Canadian, so if my English isn't always top-notch, I'm sorry. I'm also a college student who's in love with philosophy (and not to mention his philosophy class!). I write a lot of my philosophical thoughts in my live journal (user name? Dark_rogue13) and hardly anyone ever seems to reply, and so I was hoping to have some good 'conversations' here. I guess that's it for now, I'm sure that my membership here will be a productive one.