Thread: Death a misunderstood blessing

The blessing of death

Death is the oldest fear of all living things. Though this is subjective, most people espouse death as a negative but natural event. In order to cope we start religions, set goals, raise families, and enjoy life… while we still can that is. The loss of a loved one, a consciousness , the loss of life.

Though do we ever stop and think about the logical conclusion of an immortal conscience? Not of a reincarnated one but an everlasting one.

Let us say you have some type of super body, meaning you will suffer no ailments or physical harm. Let us also say that perhaps first you are born in the paleolithic period , through your trials and tribulations you somehow manage to escape danger, secure a position in the tribe, and raise offspring.70 years later your loved ones are now old and gray , your parents have already died , but you have a wife and many children who all love you in the most perfect way possible. In this argument that is. Then your wife and children die, but your children's children remain. Then so on and so forth. You witness more and more that life has to offer the shifting of tectonic plates changing the land masses, the different religions and cultures coming and going. You yourself are changing with it.
Perhaps you miss your family and friends but life is full of wonders right? There will always be new people , new places , and new experiences. 100 years pass, 1000 years pass, 100,000 years pass and the world is still bustling with life. 1Million years go by and humans have mutated and abandoned earth. You, the primitive, now exist in a super colony, memories of your childhood have long since been forgotten.

100 million years now past and the colony is disbanded or progressed , null difference in the end.
Now eons upon eons have gone by. There are only the last stars , black holes, quasars , dust and you floating aimlessly in space. Add many supereon’s to the equation and now chemical reactions themselves cannot even sustain itself.

The universe is dead, but you aren't.
Victory?
A lonesome Conscience in a true void,
Life and death are blessings of equal proportion
Each giving strength to the other.

I have no axe to grind with death, it's the getting there slowly in a piecemeal fashion that worries me!

Originally Posted by Epictetus

The blessing of death

Death is the oldest fear of all living things. Though this is subjective, most people espouse death as a negative but natural event. In order to cope we start religions, set goals, raise families, and enjoy life… while we still can that is. The loss of a loved one, a consciousness , the loss of life.

Though do we ever stop and think about the logical conclusion of an immortal conscience? Not of a reincarnated one but an everlasting one.

Let us say you have some type of super body, meaning you will suffer no ailments or physical harm. Let us also say that perhaps first you are born in the paleolithic period , through your trials and tribulations you somehow manage to escape danger, secure a position in the tribe, and raise offspring.70 years later your loved ones are now old and gray , your parents have already died , but you have a wife and many children who all love you in the most perfect way possible. In this argument that is. Then your wife and children die, but your children's children remain. Then so on and so forth. You witness more and more that life has to offer the shifting of tectonic plates changing the land masses, the different religions and cultures coming and going. You yourself are changing with it.
Perhaps you miss your family and friends but life is full of wonders right? There will always be new people , new places , and new experiences. 100 years pass, 1000 years pass, 100,000 years pass and the world is still bustling with life. 1Million years go by and humans have mutated and abandoned earth. You, the primitive, now exist in a super colony, memories of your childhood have long since been forgotten.

100 million years now past and the colony is disbanded or progressed , null difference in the end.
Now eons upon eons have gone by. There are only the last stars , black holes, quasars , dust and you floating aimlessly in space. Add many supereon’s to the equation and now chemical reactions themselves cannot even sustain itself.

The universe is dead, but you aren't.
Victory?
A lonesome Conscience in a true void,
Life and death are blessings of equal proportion
Each giving strength to the other.

Aw hell, I’m beginning to think you’re a troll.

So ultimately the universe and everything in it is going to die?

Maybe yes, maybe no, but just what point are you trying to make here?

If everything is nothingness then what’s the point in any of our actions?

(See, I can be cryptic too!)

Fuck that shit. It’s just more “take it up the ass and deal with it” bull.

However, in the spirit of debate let me put this to you:

We don’t know what the future holds for us on a personal level, but you assume that you know what the future holds for all of us on some sort of cosmic level?

Bullshit!

Ah, but this is what science tells us!

More bullshit.

Scientists don’t know any more than the rest of us when it comes to such things, they just pretend that they do. Maybe they are convinced that they are right, but this is merely self-delusion.

At best all we can do is focus on our day to day lives and make some small plans for our futures.

My read on your post is: Why bother, just give in to the inevitable.

This sounds like manipulative fuckwittery to me.

Originally Posted by Jackoff

Aw hell, I’m beginning to think you’re a troll.

So ultimately the universe and everything in it is going to die?

Maybe yes, maybe no, but just what point are you trying to make here?

If everything is nothingness then what’s the point in any of our actions?

(See, I can be cryptic too!)

Fuck that shit. It’s just more “take it up the ass and deal with it” bull.

However, in the spirit of debate let me put this to you:

We don’t know what the future holds for us on a personal level, but you assume that you know what the future holds for all of us on some sort of cosmic level?

Bullshit!

Ah, but this is what science tells us!

More bullshit.

Scientists don’t know any more than the rest of us when it comes to such things, they just pretend that they do. Maybe they are convinced that they are right, but this is merely self-delusion.

At best all we can do is focus on our day to day lives and make some small plans for our futures.

My read on your post is: Why bother, just give in to the inevitable.

This sounds like manipulative fuckwittery to me.

I liked the OP post, but was hoping someone would push back a bit on it because it is such a hopeless and futile view of it. I don't take as harsh a view as Jackoff, but appreciate the pushback...that being said I understand the distinction between a reincarnating consciousness and an endless one...and both are not mutually exclusive in my view.

My own inner voice/intutition/God (whatever it is) has always told me that this particular life is but one of an infinite and endless amount of "the universe experiencing itself in all possible ways/forms". The possibilities here are of course endless, just on our planet (from rocks to trees, to each individual life forms' experience - time is irrelevant as it's linearity is really just a human construct)...

Should you believe the scientific estimates of numbers of planets (and possible experiences on each of these), along with the possibilities of infinite other universes, then a never-ending amount of experiences are available - including of course the option to "wipe your conscience clean" prior to any new experience...this having the effect of both re-incarnating and an endless consciousness.

An endless, never-ending consciousness with no ability to break that does seem dreary...but it's ridiculous to think such a powerful force wouldn't have the ability to control that experience as I've described. Otherwise the experience seems awfully close to the biblical version of "hell".

Originally Posted by KRFJames

I liked the OP post, but was hoping someone would push back a bit on it because it is such a hopeless and futile view of it. I don't take as harsh a view as Jackoff, but appreciate the pushback...that being said I understand the distinction between a reincarnating consciousness and an endless one...and both are not mutually exclusive in my view.

My own inner voice/intutition/God (whatever it is) has always told me that this particular life is but one of an infinite and endless amount of "the universe experiencing itself in all possible ways/forms". The possibilities here are of course endless, just on our planet (from rocks to trees, to each individual life forms' experience - time is irrelevant as it's linearity is really just a human construct)...

Should you believe the scientific estimates of numbers of planets (and possible experiences on each of these), along with the possibilities of infinite other universes, then a never-ending amount of experiences are available - including of course the option to "wipe your conscience clean" prior to any new experience...this having the effect of both re-incarnating and an endless consciousness.

An endless, never-ending consciousness with no ability to break that does seem dreary...but it's ridiculous to think such a powerful force wouldn't have the ability to control that experience as I've described. Otherwise the experience seems awfully close to the biblical version of "hell".

Understand that these things are mental gymnastics that are intriguing to explore intellectually, but one needs to be careful in doing so to ensure that we keep our feet planted firmly on the ground.

It seems that many get so carried away in their daydreams that reality just seems to slip away and it all becomes a blurry mess.

But I’m not without such daydreams. For example:

We are conscious.
We are part of the universe.
Therefore the universe is conscious.

Maybe we are not the only part of the universe that has consciousness.
Maybe we are but one small part in some sort of collective consciousness.

Maybe this collective consciousness is what we perceive to be God.

If this is so, then are we all not part of God and God is within us all?

But this is merely a mind experiment, to believe that it is truly the case is to deny any other possible explanation.

I don’t believe in absolutes, or much else for that matter.

Aw hell, I’m beginning to think you’re a troll.
So ultimately the universe and everything in it is going to die?

If you understand how energy works then this is a matter of FACT. Instead of doing research you give a emotionally charged rant. If you wanted to prove that energy over time doesn't levels itself into a more neutral state over time(heat death), then why didn't you do it?


Maybe yes, maybe no, but just what point are you trying to make here?

That we should appreciate death as much as we appreciate life because both are equally as good. I literally say it in the title

If everything is nothingness then what’s the point in any of our actions?
(See, I can be cryptic too!)

You are debating with yourself as i never mentioned anything about life being pointless quite the opposite
And you aren't being cryptic but a jackoff, jack off.




Fuck that shit. It’s just more “take it up the ass and deal with it” bull.

? i'm not saying this you are.


However, in the spirit of debate let me put this to you:
We don’t know what the future holds for us on a personal level, but you assume that you know what the future holds for all of us on some sort of cosmic level?


You would simply have to deny science; you aren't even basing your response based on reason or logic. If you don't believe it PROVE it otherwise

Bullshit!
Ah, but this is what science tells us!
More bullshit.
Scientists don’t know any more than the rest of us when it comes to such things, they just pretend that they do. Maybe they are convinced that they are right, but this is merely self-delusion.

No you are without a doubt deluded . You rely on science when it comes to your day to day but deny it when it comes to matters of energy?. You simply are uninformed and reactionary

At best all we can do is focus on our day to day lives and make some small plans for our futures.

sure

My read on your post is: Why bother, just give in to the inevitable.
This sounds like manipulative fuckwittery to me.

^ i'm convinced you immediately jumped to conclusions or didn't read the post .
Uninformed, unintelligent ,but vocal and egotistical. I never said any of the things you mentioned so you are simply smearing and misrepresenting.
BUT if you did want to confront my belief that death is equally as valuable as life why take that avenue? Why not mention why it isn’t of the same value.
But you didn’t.


Look jackoff I'm willing to go toe to toe with you and in fact i appreciate that you are so critical. I simply dont understand how you are arguing my point of life and death sharing equal value.

I liked the OP post, but was hoping someone would push back a bit on it

You can be that push back the reason i make post like this is to try to ignite the fire of thinking in the people here. So far jackoff , you , wombat and some others are the only ones. I read all of your post but im not quite sure what you mean. If you would please take the time to explain or refute. Its literally the only way that we can get smarter. Often when i debate with people they simple say their piece , Then criticize my words but do not actually thoroughly explain their side. If you think different please go off.

Philosophize is a place of argument!

Originally Posted by Epictetus

I liked the OP post, but was hoping someone would push back a bit on it

You can be that push back the reason i make post like this is to try to ignite the fire of thinking in the people here. So far jackoff , you , wombat and some others are the only ones. I read all of your post but im not quite sure what you mean. If you would please take the time to explain or refute. Its literally the only way that we can get smarter. Often when i debate with people they simple say their piece , Then criticize my words but do not actually thoroughly explain their side. If you think different please go off.

Philosophize is a place of argument!

Agree that philosophical discussions are a place of argument/debate - when I refer to pushback, it was more about another viewpoint coming in and not so much my own. The more opinions the better, I suppose. Jackoff's response opened the door to that.

I believe we share a similar view - I do not see death as a negative (even if it is a subconsciously chosen "consciousness death" as I tried to describe in my response). I didn't always see things this way - but as a farmer, I am highly in-tune with natural cycles and death is a part of the everyday experience here - much of it at my own hand....it is a necessary part of life and should be embraced as such. It literally feeds new life - and I think that happens not only on a local scale (my farm), but on a cosmic one as well.

I also share your view that an endless consciousness in an endless void of a dead universe is tragic, and I discount the notion in my own reflections.

I do agree with Jackoff in that these are merely intellectual exercises and one must always remain grounded and open to ALL possibilities as we navigate the world on a day to day basis.

Originally Posted by Epictetus

You can be that push back the reason i make post like this is to try to ignite the fire of thinking in the people here. So far jackoff , you , wombat and some others are the only ones.

I do very much appreciate that you initiate these posts for that very reason...I don't always respond/contribute but it does make me think deeply (and has me expanding my physical library of philosophy books as a result!).

Originally Posted by Epictetus

Aw hell, I’m beginning to think you’re a troll.
So ultimately the universe and everything in it is going to die?

If you understand how energy works then this is a matter of FACT. Instead of doing research you give a emotionally charged rant. If you wanted to prove that energy over time doesn't levels itself into a more neutral state over time(heat death), then why didn't you do it?


Maybe yes, maybe no, but just what point are you trying to make here?

That we should appreciate death as much as we appreciate life because both are equally as good. I literally say it in the title

If everything is nothingness then what’s the point in any of our actions?
(See, I can be cryptic too!)

You are debating with yourself as i never mentioned anything about life being pointless quite the opposite
And you aren't being cryptic but a jackoff, jack off.




Fuck that shit. It’s just more “take it up the ass and deal with it” bull.

? i'm not saying this you are.


However, in the spirit of debate let me put this to you:
We don’t know what the future holds for us on a personal level, but you assume that you know what the future holds for all of us on some sort of cosmic level?


You would simply have to deny science; you aren't even basing your response based on reason or logic. If you don't believe it PROVE it otherwise

Bullshit!
Ah, but this is what science tells us!
More bullshit.
Scientists don’t know any more than the rest of us when it comes to such things, they just pretend that they do. Maybe they are convinced that they are right, but this is merely self-delusion.

No you are without a doubt deluded . You rely on science when it comes to your day to day but deny it when it comes to matters of energy?. You simply are uninformed and reactionary

At best all we can do is focus on our day to day lives and make some small plans for our futures.

sure

My read on your post is: Why bother, just give in to the inevitable.
This sounds like manipulative fuckwittery to me.

^ i'm convinced you immediately jumped to conclusions or didn't read the post .
Uninformed, unintelligent ,but vocal and egotistical. I never said any of the things you mentioned so you are simply smearing and misrepresenting.
BUT if you did want to confront my belief that death is equally as valuable as life why take that avenue? Why not mention why it isn’t of the same value.
But you didn’t.


Look jackoff I'm willing to go toe to toe with you and in fact i appreciate that you are so critical. I simply dont understand how you are arguing my point of life and death sharing equal value.

[Warning – VERY long post]

Well now isn’t this interesting?

The sheer number of insults directed solely at me (ad hominems) in this post is quite frankly staggering.

Since I cast the first stone I’ll let them pass as an understandable retort to my statements, however such a highly charged emotional response from one who espouses stoicism does seem like a bit of contradiction…

Casting aspersions as to the level of a fellow member’s intelligence is beneath the membership here, one I will not participate in. Not that it’s beyond me, as far as I’m concerned non-members or banned members (non-self-requests) are fair game.

What I will do though is try to reply to your, er, critiques. I will point out though I can only offer a glimpse into my thinking, to try to explain everything would take volumes.


First up, my opening statement: “Aw hell, I’m beginning to think you’re a troll.”

Note that this is not an absolute declaration, it is merely an observation that I’m on my way to believing this and I maintain I have my reasons. So why am I “beginning” to think this?

Well, it began with the opening statement of your previous thread about stoicism when you said “I will allow you to understand…” This baited the hook. Have you any idea how arrogant and self-righteous this reads? That somehow you are the arbiter of truth?

I’ve said my piece on that particular thread there so there’s no point in repeating it here; suffice to say you got my attention.

Then you open this thread suggesting that death is somehow comparable to life in its potential benefits. Life is, for better or worse, something. Death is nothing. How can nothing be comparable to something?

Now, there are those that profess death is merely a step in a journey to some sort of afterlife such as Heaven or reincarnation, but that isn’t really death then is it?

So, in your previous thread you suggest that it’s possible to be happy regardless of one’s situation. This is my take on this position (not to put words in your mouth): this is just like all those married men out there trying to convince others, and maybe even themselves that they are happy when it’s obvious to any onlooker that they’re miserable and they know it.

Then we come to this thread where you imply death is a viable alternative to life for a healthy person. And no you didn’t use these words, but it is beyond doubt this was what you said.

Was my response emotional? You’d better believe it because I’m sick and tired of hiding my “emotional responses”. Stoicism is only useful to me when it’s useful to me.

And I’m just getting started.

So ultimately the universe and everything in it is going to die?

If you understand how energy works then this is a matter of FACT. Instead of doing research you give a emotionally charged rant. If you wanted to prove that energy over time doesn't levels itself into a more neutral state over time(heat death), then why didn't you do it?

This is where you’re wrong. This is not a matter of FACT.

Death of the universe

These are merely conjectures on if the universe is going to die then this is how it MAY happen, not predictions that it WILL happen. There is a vast chasm in the understanding of the difference.

Entropy:

1.
Physics
a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.
"the second law of thermodynamics says that entropy always increases with time"

This seems to be where you’re coming from and far be it from me to argue with the laws of physics, but being the argumentative fekker I am, I’ll give it a shot:

The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted from one form of energy to another. This means that a system always has the same amount of energy, unless it's added from the outside.

Law of conservation of energy

So then, it seems to me that in a closed system the energy being dissipated from one body will either be absorbed by another body or come together to form a new body, this latter being dependant on the assertion that all matter is energy.


However, an ever expanding universe such that you describe is not such a “closed” system so let’s look at the merits of this theory:

You would simply have to deny science; you aren't even basing your response based on reason or logic. If you don't believe it PROVE it otherwise


No you are without a doubt deluded . You rely on science when it comes to your day to day but deny it when it comes to matters of energy?. You simply are uninformed and reactionary

Deny science? Never! I do however question things. Just how can anyone PROVE a disbelief?

It is not up to me nor anyone else to PROVE them wrong, it is up to those that espouse a particular viewpoint to prove themselves right.

So, back to the expanding universe theory:

We are told repeatedly by “scientists” that when we look out using our most powerful telescopes that the observable universe is expanding, that all the observable galaxies are moving further and further away from each other. Note the word “observable”, I’ll come back to that in a moment.

Except that’s not exactly true is it?

Our Milky Way galaxy is destined to collide with our closest large neighbor, the Andromeda galaxy, in about five billion years. There's no stopping it, but we can predict what's going to happen, and thanks to powerful new telescopes, we can even watch previews by studying other galaxy mergers.

The Milky Way Is Destined to Collide with Andromeda, and We ...

So, all galaxies are moving further and further away from each other – except for the ones that are moving closer together???

And they come up with notions to explain such exceptions like “local groups”, but they either are or they aren’t, which is it?

Anyhoo, back to the “observable” universe.

They say it’s expanding and overall I’ll take them at their word on this. But this is only the observable universe. I’m going to go out on limb here and suggest that what we can see is only a tiny fraction of the universe. I have no evidence to support this other than the further we can see the more that we find so it stands to reason that there’s a LOT more out there that we are currently unaware of.

So, the expanding universe theory is based on the evidence currently available, fair enough, but that doesn’t make it fact, that’s why it’s termed a theory and not a law. And it never will be a law because the only way to know for sure (mathematics be damned) is to be able to view the entire universe as if from the outside, which is obviously impossible.

But wait, there’s more…

They now say that not only is the observable universe expanding, but such expansion is accelerating.

Newton's first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.

Newton's Laws of Motion - Glenn Research Center - NASA

Now, the only external forces that could be causing this are ones of attraction such as gravity (which isn’t really a force but for the most part can be accepted as such) and repulsion for which we have no evidence, merely a few speculations that perhaps gravity is a 2-way street – it attracts up to a point then it repels, which to be honest sounds more than a bit iffy to me.


What all this means I don’t know. Neither do they. That’s my point. Nobody knows and those that profess that they do are nothing more than carpetbaggers.

Uninformed, unintelligent ,but vocal and egotistical. I never said any of the things you mentioned so you are simply smearing and misrepresenting.
BUT if you did want to confront my belief that death is equally as valuable as life why take that avenue? Why not mention why it isn’t of the same value.
But you didn’t.

Do I seem as uninformed and unintelligent now? If so, please explain. The weekend’s coming and I could use a good jolly to kick it off.

Originally Posted by Jackoff

[Warning – VERY long post]

Well now isn’t this interesting?

The sheer number of insults directed solely at me (ad hominems) in this post is quite frankly staggering.

Since I cast the first stone I’ll let them pass as an understandable retort to my statements, however such a highly charged emotional response from one who espouses stoicism does seem like a bit of contradiction…

Casting aspersions as to the level of a fellow member’s intelligence is beneath the membership here, one I will not participate in. Not that it’s beyond me, as far as I’m concerned non-members or banned members (non-self-requests) are fair game.

What I will do though is try to reply to your, er, critiques. I will point out though I can only offer a glimpse into my thinking, to try to explain everything would take volumes.


First up, my opening statement: “Aw hell, I’m beginning to think you’re a troll.”

Note that this is not an absolute declaration, it is merely an observation that I’m on my way to believing this and I maintain I have my reasons. So why am I “beginning” to think this?

Well, it began with the opening statement of your previous thread about stoicism when you said “I will allow you to understand…” This baited the hook. Have you any idea how arrogant and self-righteous this reads? That somehow you are the arbiter of truth?

I’ve said my piece on that particular thread there so there’s no point in repeating it here; suffice to say you got my attention.

Then you open this thread suggesting that death is somehow comparable to life in its potential benefits. Life is, for better or worse, something. Death is nothing. How can nothing be comparable to something?

Now, there are those that profess death is merely a step in a journey to some sort of afterlife such as Heaven or reincarnation, but that isn’t really death then is it?

So, in your previous thread you suggest that it’s possible to be happy regardless of one’s situation. This is my take on this position (not to put words in your mouth): this is just like all those married men out there trying to convince others, and maybe even themselves that they are happy when it’s obvious to any onlooker that they’re miserable and they know it.

Then we come to this thread where you imply death is a viable alternative to life for a healthy person. And no you didn’t use these words, but it is beyond doubt this was what you said.

Was my response emotional? You’d better believe it because I’m sick and tired of hiding my “emotional responses”. Stoicism is only useful to me when it’s useful to me.

And I’m just getting started.



This is where you’re wrong. This is not a matter of FACT.

Death of the universe

These are merely conjectures on if the universe is going to die then this is how it MAY happen, not predictions that it WILL happen. There is a vast chasm in the understanding of the difference.

Entropy:



This seems to be where you’re coming from and far be it from me to argue with the laws of physics, but being the argumentative fekker I am, I’ll give it a shot:



Law of conservation of energy

So then, it seems to me that in a closed system the energy being dissipated from one body will either be absorbed by another body or come together to form a new body, this latter being dependant on the assertion that all matter is energy.


However, an ever expanding universe such that you describe is not such a “closed” system so let’s look at the merits of this theory:



Deny science? Never! I do however question things. Just how can anyone PROVE a disbelief?

It is not up to me nor anyone else to PROVE them wrong, it is up to those that espouse a particular viewpoint to prove themselves right.

So, back to the expanding universe theory:

We are told repeatedly by “scientists” that when we look out using our most powerful telescopes that the observable universe is expanding, that all the observable galaxies are moving further and further away from each other. Note the word “observable”, I’ll come back to that in a moment.

Except that’s not exactly true is it?



The Milky Way Is Destined to Collide with Andromeda, and We ...

So, all galaxies are moving further and further away from each other – except for the ones that are moving closer together???

And they come up with notions to explain such exceptions like “local groups”, but they either are or they aren’t, which is it?

Anyhoo, back to the “observable” universe.

They say it’s expanding and overall I’ll take them at their word on this. But this is only the observable universe. I’m going to go out on limb here and suggest that what we can see is only a tiny fraction of the universe. I have no evidence to support this other than the further we can see the more that we find so it stands to reason that there’s a LOT more out there that we are currently unaware of.

So, the expanding universe theory is based on the evidence currently available, fair enough, but that doesn’t make it fact, that’s why it’s termed a theory and not a law. And it never will be a law because the only way to know for sure (mathematics be damned) is to be able to view the entire universe as if from the outside, which is obviously impossible.

But wait, there’s more…

They now say that not only is the observable universe expanding, but such expansion is accelerating.



Newton's Laws of Motion - Glenn Research Center - NASA

Now, the only external forces that could be causing this are ones of attraction such as gravity (which isn’t really a force but for the most part can be accepted as such) and repulsion for which we have no evidence, merely a few speculations that perhaps gravity is a 2-way street – it attracts up to a point then it repels, which to be honest sounds more than a bit iffy to me.


What all this means I don’t know. Neither do they. That’s my point. Nobody knows and those that profess that they do are nothing more than carpetbaggers.






Do I seem as uninformed and unintelligent now? If so, please explain. The weekend’s coming and I could use a good jolly to kick it off.

See boys and girls, see how Jack does it, he doesn't YELL!

He doesn't think either...

Originally Posted by Epictetus

He doesn't think either...

Damn. I'm floored with such an in-depth, insightful response.

This is the philosophize sub-forum isn't it?

Response to Jackoff
The sheer number of insults directed solely at me (ad hominems) in this post is quite frankly staggering.

I do not mean them as insults but as literal descriptors , in the last post you added no value but a reactionary , uninformed and emotional response.

Since I cast the first stone I’ll let them pass as an understandable retort to my statements, however such a highly charged emotional response from one who espouses stoicism does seem like a bit of contradiction…

No, it's because you lack critical thinking. You may have made some type of image of me in your head of someone that i am trying to be. “A stoic”, but you really cannot comprehend what it means to be a person. If you actually did any research which again you don't do , you would know that even the ancient stoics themselves said that we are only human.Being a stoic is the ideal goal and we are going towards that . You just say that it is emotional but , do not provide evidence.For the record no it wasn't emotional using bold lettering, provocative language and directly challenging are means to emphasize in an argument. They are literary strategies . I would continue but you are just mudding the waters. Again this is what i mean, you aren't even debating the main point.

Casting aspersions as to the level of a fellow member’s intelligence is beneath the membership here, one I will not participate in. Not that it’s beyond me, as far as I’m concerned non-members or banned members (non-self-requests) are fair game.

??? What are you talking about didn't you call me a troll? Why draw that arbitrary line? Intuition tells me you are lying but fine let's just believe you because I cannot prove otherwise. Again just prove your point



Well, it began with the opening statement of your previous thread about stoicism when you said “I will allow you to understand…” This baited the hook. Have you any idea how arrogant and self-righteous this reads? That somehow you are the arbiter of truth?

That was your interpretation , and even later I said I didn't mean it as you say. This shows more about you then anything… And the funny part is if you read my words “I will allow you to understand that in no uncertain terms ,that this is my interpretation of what the enchiridion means ”
That was the full quote that you didn't put.
I am directly saying that this is my interpretation…That sounds arrogant and self-righteous to you?
But again, what does this have to do with the main topic? More mud slinging

Then you open this thread suggesting that death is somehow comparable to life in its potential benefits. Life is, for better or worse, something.

If you were immortal you would literally be the only thing left When time actually ends. You would be alone in a void, Krf james got it right i was alluding to biblical hell. My point was that if we lived forever it would eventually be like a curse. That's why my thread is named Death the Misunderstood blessing.


“How can nothing be comparable to something”. In your sentence you are literally comparing. IF you are not religious which you aren’t in this case you would compare life to death. How is this point somehow mystical or doesn't make sense?


Now, there are those that profess death is merely a step in a journey to some sort of afterlife such as Heaven or reincarnation, but that isn’t really death then is it?

?? In my previous post I also said I am not religious, that is why I EXCLUDED reincarnation and heaven. Again still attacking me and not the augment


So, in your previous thread you suggest that it’s possible to be happy regardless of one’s situation. This is my take on this position (not to put words in your mouth): this is just like all those married men out there trying to convince others, and maybe even themselves that they are happy when it’s obvious to any onlooker that they’re miserable and they know it.
Then we come to this thread where you imply death is a viable alternative to life for a healthy person. And no you didn’t use these words, but it is beyond doubt this was what you said.
Was my response emotional? You’d better believe it because I’m sick and tired of hiding my “emotional responses”. Stoicism is only useful to me when it’s useful to me.
And I’m just getting started.

??? i love an emotional response, I have no patience for a substanceless retort.

This is where you’re wrong. This is not a matter of FACT.

Death of the universe

These are merely conjectures on if the universe is going to die then this is how it MAY happen, not predictions that it WILL happen. There is a vast chasm in the understanding of the difference.

Did you even read the article you posted? If you did it literally say at the end that it won't happen for another 200 billion years. And in my post I said it would mean supereons until it happened. They are both the same thing. But hey maybe you linked it as a simple explanation of what it is, rather then your defense.

So then, it seems to me that in a closed system the energy being dissipated from one body will either be absorbed by another body or come together to form a new body, this latter being dependant on the assertion that all matter is energy.

No its not… The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted from one form of energy to another. This means that a system always has the same amount of energy, unless it's added from the outside.
Because the universe is expanding energy is also expanding and If that is the case then over time the energy will be so spread out that it will not be able to form reactions. Imagine you have a bowl ⅓ of sugar. Now pour water into it. At first the water and sugar mix making it extremely sweet (beginning of universe) aka right now. Then over time keep adding 50mg of water that doubles in mg every time you add it.
This would dilute the water.(meaning the universe is expanding at an increasing rate),
Eventually there would be much more water than sugar diluting it till the point where you would have to search for the individual sugar atoms. That's why I said eventually chemical reactions won't even be able to sustain themselves.

However, an ever expanding universe such that you describe is not such a “closed” system so let’s look at the merits of this theory:

So, all galaxies are moving further and further away from each other – except for the ones that are moving closer together???

??? So because two masses are destined to collide because of their masses that means that the law of energy conversation isn’t true? We are at the beginning of the universe. Things are still active , I honestly don\t even know where to start because it's like saying just because it was cold today means that global warming isn’t happening. It's a false equivalence


Do I seem as uninformed and unintelligent now?

You seemed even more uninformed and intelligent. But hey since you somehow think you are proving your point i will give you the reasons why i think what i think about the universe.

“The Head death of the universe”
The heat death of the universe (also known as the Big Chill or Big Freeze)[1] is a hypothesis on the ultimate fate of the universe, which suggests the universe will evolve to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and will, therefore, be unable to sustain processes that increase entropy. Heat death does not imply any particular absolute temperature; it only requires that temperature differences or other processes may no longer be exploited to perform work. In the language of physics, this is when the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium. The Heat Death theory has become the leading theory in the modern age with the fewest unpredictable factors.
If the topology of the universe is open or flat, or if dark energy is a positive cosmological constant (both of which are consistent with current data), the universe will continue expanding forever, and a heat death is expected to occur,[2] with the universe cooling to approach equilibrium at a very low temperature after a very long time period.
The hypothesis of heat death stems from the ideas of Lord Kelvin, who in the 1850s took the theory of heat as mechanical energy loss in nature (as embodied in the first two laws of thermodynamics) and extrapolated it to larger processes on a universal scale. This also allowed Kelvin to formulate the heat death paradox, which disproves an infinitely old universe.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe#:~:text=Heat%20death%20 does%20not%20imply,the%20universe%20reaches%20ther modynamic%20equilibrium.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-science-survive-the-death-of-the-universe/

if you are speculating about our long-term cosmic future, you must confront the second law of thermodynamics, science’s most depressing insight into nature. It decrees that closed systems, which don’t get infusions of energy from an outside source, tend over time to become more disordered. That’s a euphemism for boring. The second law implies that the universe will inevitably lapse into heat death, in which everything, everywhere, is exactly the same temperature, near absolute zero, and nothing ever happens.


https://www.britannica.com/science/thermodynamics/Entropy-and-heat-death

The example of a heat engine illustrates one of the many ways in which the second law of thermodynamics can be applied. One way to generalize the example is to consider the heat engine and its heat reservoir as parts of an isolated (or closed) system—i.e., one that does not exchange heat or work with its surroundings. For example, the heat engine and reservoir could be encased in a rigid container with insulating walls. In this case the second law of thermodynamics (in the simplified form presented here) says that no matter what process takes place inside the container, its entropy must increase or remain the same in the limit of a reversible process. Similarly, if the universe is an isolated system, then its entropy too must increase with time. Indeed, the implication is that the universe must ultimately suffer a “heat death” as its entropy progressively increases toward a maximum value and all parts come into thermal equilibrium at a uniform temperature.



Ok so in my view it is of 99.9% certain that something of that variety will happen. I will concede that the 00.01% percent chance of something else happening is a real possibility.
Goin from that “logic/proof/fact” then I would say that being immortal would eventually lead to suffering. If you yourself said that these are simply thought experiments and it important to remind grounded . Then how is it possible you cannot extrapolate in this situation.

Originally Posted by Epictetus

Ok so in my view it is of 99.9% certain that something of that variety will happen. I will concede that the 00.01% percent chance of something else happening is a real possibility.

I see. This statement has changed my perception of you from one of distrust to one of concern.

I’ve no idea how you will perceive this, possibly as some sort of undermining attack in disguise but hopefully you will see it for the genuine statement that it is.

Maybe you’re right, maybe not. How many times over the ages has perception of such things changed?

How the universe will end, if it will end is irrelevant. What is relevant is your certainty in such matters.

And it isn’t just this is it? Your views on stoicism and existentialism seem to be equally as rigid.

I’m unsure as to why you are here as being so sure of your stance(s) you haven’t come here to debate. Maybe to proselytise, maybe something else I don’t know.

Sometimes certainty in one’s own viewpoint can be a huge positive as it can drive one to accomplish extraordinary things, but this can come at a price; the viewing of others as somehow lesser beings because they don’t see things as you do. This could go some way to explaining your attacks on my intelligence.

My apologies for the dime store psycho-analysis, I’ll leave it alone now.

I said at the top of this post that I am now concerned and now I’ll explain why:

It seems to me that your thoughts, reflections, ruminations (call them what you will) are leading you down a very dark path to the point that you now believe death can have some sort of meaning in and of itself equal to that of life. What’s the next stage? That death holds more meaning than life?

Herein lies my concern. I fear that you are thinking your way towards suicide. I truly hope that I am wrong, but if not I hope that you seek medical advice before yet another life is senselessly lost.

I’ll be bowing out now as I have no desire to contribute to such thoughts even to disagree as this will only encourage you to pursue such an avenue.

Good luck to you in your journey wherever it takes you my friend (and no, I’m not being sarcastic).

Just make sure that your journey continues.

I’m unsure as to why you are here as being so sure of your stance(s) you haven’t come here to debate. Maybe to proselytise, maybe something else I don’t know





Not only did i give you reasons ,but i gave you sources and the logic behind it. My thoughts are not rigid and unchanging you were just unconvincing. The only thing you said was that it was possible that the scientific consensus might change , which i agreed might be possible.
You went from "in the spirit of debate " to "thinking your way towards suicide" .

Tell me again who wasn't here to debate. but i digress this is a beaten horse.

Originally Posted by Epictetus

Response to Jackoff
The sheer number of insults directed solely at me (ad hominems) in this post is quite frankly staggering.

I do not mean them as insults but as literal descriptors , in the last post you added no value but a reactionary , uninformed and emotional response.

Since I cast the first stone I’ll let them pass as an understandable retort to my statements, however such a highly charged emotional response from one who espouses stoicism does seem like a bit of contradiction…

No, it's because you lack critical thinking. You may have made some type of image of me in your head of someone that i am trying to be. “A stoic”, but you really cannot comprehend what it means to be a person. If you actually did any research which again you don't do , you would know that even the ancient stoics themselves said that we are only human.Being a stoic is the ideal goal and we are going towards that . You just say that it is emotional but , do not provide evidence.For the record no it wasn't emotional using bold lettering, provocative language and directly challenging are means to emphasize in an argument. They are literary strategies . I would continue but you are just mudding the waters. Again this is what i mean, you aren't even debating the main point.

Casting aspersions as to the level of a fellow member’s intelligence is beneath the membership here, one I will not participate in. Not that it’s beyond me, as far as I’m concerned non-members or banned members (non-self-requests) are fair game.

??? What are you talking about didn't you call me a troll? Why draw that arbitrary line? Intuition tells me you are lying but fine let's just believe you because I cannot prove otherwise. Again just prove your point



Well, it began with the opening statement of your previous thread about stoicism when you said “I will allow you to understand…” This baited the hook. Have you any idea how arrogant and self-righteous this reads? That somehow you are the arbiter of truth?

That was your interpretation , and even later I said I didn't mean it as you say. This shows more about you then anything… And the funny part is if you read my words “I will allow you to understand that in no uncertain terms ,that this is my interpretation of what the enchiridion means ”
That was the full quote that you didn't put.
I am directly saying that this is my interpretation…That sounds arrogant and self-righteous to you?
But again, what does this have to do with the main topic? More mud slinging

Then you open this thread suggesting that death is somehow comparable to life in its potential benefits. Life is, for better or worse, something.

If you were immortal you would literally be the only thing left When time actually ends. You would be alone in a void, Krf james got it right i was alluding to biblical hell. My point was that if we lived forever it would eventually be like a curse. That's why my thread is named Death the Misunderstood blessing.


“How can nothing be comparable to something”. In your sentence you are literally comparing. IF you are not religious which you aren’t in this case you would compare life to death. How is this point somehow mystical or doesn't make sense?


Now, there are those that profess death is merely a step in a journey to some sort of afterlife such as Heaven or reincarnation, but that isn’t really death then is it?

?? In my previous post I also said I am not religious, that is why I EXCLUDED reincarnation and heaven. Again still attacking me and not the augment


So, in your previous thread you suggest that it’s possible to be happy regardless of one’s situation. This is my take on this position (not to put words in your mouth): this is just like all those married men out there trying to convince others, and maybe even themselves that they are happy when it’s obvious to any onlooker that they’re miserable and they know it.
Then we come to this thread where you imply death is a viable alternative to life for a healthy person. And no you didn’t use these words, but it is beyond doubt this was what you said.
Was my response emotional? You’d better believe it because I’m sick and tired of hiding my “emotional responses”. Stoicism is only useful to me when it’s useful to me.
And I’m just getting started.

??? i love an emotional response, I have no patience for a substanceless retort.

This is where you’re wrong. This is not a matter of FACT.

Death of the universe

These are merely conjectures on if the universe is going to die then this is how it MAY happen, not predictions that it WILL happen. There is a vast chasm in the understanding of the difference.

Did you even read the article you posted? If you did it literally say at the end that it won't happen for another 200 billion years. And in my post I said it would mean supereons until it happened. They are both the same thing. But hey maybe you linked it as a simple explanation of what it is, rather then your defense.

So then, it seems to me that in a closed system the energy being dissipated from one body will either be absorbed by another body or come together to form a new body, this latter being dependant on the assertion that all matter is energy.

No its not… The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted from one form of energy to another. This means that a system always has the same amount of energy, unless it's added from the outside.
Because the universe is expanding energy is also expanding and If that is the case then over time the energy will be so spread out that it will not be able to form reactions. Imagine you have a bowl ⅓ of sugar. Now pour water into it. At first the water and sugar mix making it extremely sweet (beginning of universe) aka right now. Then over time keep adding 50mg of water that doubles in mg every time you add it.
This would dilute the water.(meaning the universe is expanding at an increasing rate),
Eventually there would be much more water than sugar diluting it till the point where you would have to search for the individual sugar atoms. That's why I said eventually chemical reactions won't even be able to sustain themselves.

However, an ever expanding universe such that you describe is not such a “closed” system so let’s look at the merits of this theory:

So, all galaxies are moving further and further away from each other – except for the ones that are moving closer together???

??? So because two masses are destined to collide because of their masses that means that the law of energy conversation isn’t true? We are at the beginning of the universe. Things are still active , I honestly don\t even know where to start because it's like saying just because it was cold today means that global warming isn’t happening. It's a false equivalence


Do I seem as uninformed and unintelligent now?

You seemed even more uninformed and intelligent. But hey since you somehow think you are proving your point i will give you the reasons why i think what i think about the universe.

“The Head death of the universe”
The heat death of the universe (also known as the Big Chill or Big Freeze)[1] is a hypothesis on the ultimate fate of the universe, which suggests the universe will evolve to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and will, therefore, be unable to sustain processes that increase entropy. Heat death does not imply any particular absolute temperature; it only requires that temperature differences or other processes may no longer be exploited to perform work. In the language of physics, this is when the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium. The Heat Death theory has become the leading theory in the modern age with the fewest unpredictable factors.
If the topology of the universe is open or flat, or if dark energy is a positive cosmological constant (both of which are consistent with current data), the universe will continue expanding forever, and a heat death is expected to occur,[2] with the universe cooling to approach equilibrium at a very low temperature after a very long time period.
The hypothesis of heat death stems from the ideas of Lord Kelvin, who in the 1850s took the theory of heat as mechanical energy loss in nature (as embodied in the first two laws of thermodynamics) and extrapolated it to larger processes on a universal scale. This also allowed Kelvin to formulate the heat death paradox, which disproves an infinitely old universe.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe#:~:text=Heat%20death%20 does%20not%20imply,the%20universe%20reaches%20ther modynamic%20equilibrium.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-science-survive-the-death-of-the-universe/

if you are speculating about our long-term cosmic future, you must confront the second law of thermodynamics, science’s most depressing insight into nature. It decrees that closed systems, which don’t get infusions of energy from an outside source, tend over time to become more disordered. That’s a euphemism for boring. The second law implies that the universe will inevitably lapse into heat death, in which everything, everywhere, is exactly the same temperature, near absolute zero, and nothing ever happens.


https://www.britannica.com/science/thermodynamics/Entropy-and-heat-death

The example of a heat engine illustrates one of the many ways in which the second law of thermodynamics can be applied. One way to generalize the example is to consider the heat engine and its heat reservoir as parts of an isolated (or closed) system—i.e., one that does not exchange heat or work with its surroundings. For example, the heat engine and reservoir could be encased in a rigid container with insulating walls. In this case the second law of thermodynamics (in the simplified form presented here) says that no matter what process takes place inside the container, its entropy must increase or remain the same in the limit of a reversible process. Similarly, if the universe is an isolated system, then its entropy too must increase with time. Indeed, the implication is that the universe must ultimately suffer a “heat death” as its entropy progressively increases toward a maximum value and all parts come into thermal equilibrium at a uniform temperature.



Ok so in my view it is of 99.9% certain that something of that variety will happen. I will concede that the 00.01% percent chance of something else happening is a real possibility.
Goin from that “logic/proof/fact” then I would say that being immortal would eventually lead to suffering. If you yourself said that these are simply thought experiments and it important to remind grounded . Then how is it possible you cannot extrapolate in this situation.

I nominate this post for the lengthiest post on the site, there should be an award! lol

I used to read a lot of Nietzsche, Kant, Einstein thinking it would make me smarter, Just as I have read a lot about Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, thinking it would make me more enlightened…

Then, I got into geology, geography, and ancient cultures, including autobiographies of Native Americans trying to be more in touch with the physical world itself, seeking a perfect balance…

I will always remember one bad masculine trip I began to have in the 90’s, though.

I was into this girl, horny as all hell, and she was coming over. She showed up with her friend, but I was so horny, I became “diplomatic”, and the next thing I knew we were all three sitting on my bed. I waited for the girl I wanted to make the first move, but the ugly one did, then the masculine or LSD then kicked in lol…

I closed my eyes to try and change reality, or at least pause it, because I wasn’t at all interested in the friend…They thought I was having a reaction, in hindsight I kinda was, to my perception of their actions that was killing my buzz…I proceeded to nope both of them by calmly closing my eyes, and keeping them shut, and lying down, hiding my frustration without any hints, to not unattract the chick I pined for…

But, what I saw, is why this all pertains to the topic…

At first it was nothing but black, like when you close your eyes…then I saw what looked like a CD (compact disc, not certificate of deposit)…and it was spinning slowly on what appeared to be outer space…I could feel the spinning, I was a part of it, the disk became an orbit of the solar system, and I was being drawn into one specific place, like when you google earth something but on a cosmic level…

The zooming in stopped on an orbiting planet, and a voice in my head said to me “this is you”…

And, my mental reaction to this was “Wow, I’m nothing but a mere speck of dust in grand scheme of things”…

Then, I opened my eyes and my train of thought was forever changed…A little ego-death going on…

Physically, we are connected with the universe, and everywhere else, because we are all in it…And, unless everything is an illusion, and we are all just stuck in meat suits in some kind of simulation, on this timeline, then that is absolute truth…

I am a firm believer that spiritually, we can and do transcend the physical realm…Metaphysical is an alternate reality that defies the physical laws of physics…or, one can waste his life away in nihilism…

I fight that battle constantly because being 100% Black Pilled, is essentially nihilism…which is a net negative, as death is physically neutral…

I have beaten my meat-suit vessel to the limits, and still do as an introverted, 44yo boiler-maker, and it’s hurts sometimes lol…But, my convictions in life have made my spirit stronger, and help me to exercise my will in ways that affect others around me to establish stronger convictions, good examples/bad examples…In old Scotland, that would probably would have made me a warlock, and I would be shunned for not being an NPC…

My take after reading so much as a lad, and then being thrown to the wolves in reality, is that experience trumps all…Quality experience hones your convictions, but you have to assert your will and be willing to be reckless-take the lumps, and trust that your physical and mental strength will catch you…

Life is more of a juggling act than a balance…Go ahead and drop the balls, that’s your decision…I’m going to juggle what I can, and what I want to, when I can and when I want to…And, I’m not trying to juggle bowling balls either, even if I can…But, it doesn’t hurt if you can…Simplicity where it counts…Hope for the best, expect the worst…

Everyone’s mileage varies…And, we all have our own hands to play…

Judge me, don’t judge me, that’s on you lol

Originally Posted by Epictetus

Tell me again who wasn't here to debate.

I tried to walk away from this thread if not on friendly terms then at least on neutral terms, but sensing that you were victorious in our encounter you cajole me and call me back as if to give me another thrashing. Well, here I am.

Know this: your victory is hollow. It was given to you, not earned. I walked away not because I was bested but because I realised I was dealing with a closed mind.

We have a saying here: you cannot red-pill a blue-piller unless he wishes to be red-pilled.

This is no different to saying: you cannot open a closed mind unless it is willing to be opened.

You have demonstrated very clearly that you have such a closed mind.

Are you willing to change this? If so there are many here that will be willing to help you, if not then carry on as you are.

No doubt you will guffaw at this statement and attempt to rebut it, possibly by explaining how much you have read but I see it as clearly as the light of day. In fact your reading is part of the problem. If you would like me to elaborate on this all you need do is ask, but I doubt at this stage you will like the answer.

If you should decide to ask know that the tone of my response will be dependent on the tone of your question. If you show that you are genuinely curious I will respond politely, if you are dismissive, well, let’s just say I won’t be so polite.


MGTOW – Seeing the truth and indoctrination with regards relationships.
GYOW – Seeing all the truth and indoctrination going on around you.


So, you are in something of a unique position in the history of humanity. You are here amongst some of the most insightful people on the planet with the ability to question such insight, something you won’t get out of any book.

Will you make use of such an amazing opportunity or will you squander it in the belief that you know best in all things?

We can help you strip away those things that are clouding your vision, but you have to do the heavy lifting. You have to confront your own beliefs and why you believe them. We can but help if you choose to undertake such an arduous journey, and it will be arduous undoubtedly filled with moments of great pain.

At the other end lies true contentment but only if you are willing to undertake such a mammoth task.

The choice is yours.

It was given to you


Saying so much but so little at the same time. Why don't you prove your point with some data, or compelling reasoning. I am not the king of England and have no need for "politeness" . This was a cognitive battle and you simply weren't meddled for it. Stop blaming a closed mind I've been listening earnestly the whole time and still am if you actually have something to say. Enough with the deflecting , Enough with the excuses.
Jack off lets be clear you got intellectually whipped.

Originally Posted by Epictetus

It was given to you


Saying so much but so little at the same time. Why don't you prove your point with some data, or compelling reasoning. I am not the king of England and have no need for "politeness" . This was a cognitive battle and you simply weren't meddled for it. Stop blaming a closed mind I've been listening earnestly the whole time and still am if you actually have something to say. Enough with the deflecting , Enough with the excuses.
Jack off lets be clear you got intellectually whipped.

Oh really, I said I would be polite if you were willing to do likewise but you have obviously decided on the confrontational route.

So be it.

By the way, it’s Jackoff, not Jack off. A minor point but one that’s not lost on you. Just another insult in a long line of attempted ad hominems intended to undermine me. Water off a duck’s back.

Let’s get something understood, I took it easy on you because you are a fellow member. That day has passed.

You have chosen to insult me at every wheel and turn, now reap the crops that you have sown.

You are a mass of contradictions which is pretty bad, but worse is you don’t even realise it.

You claim the mantle Epictetus and therefore consider yourself a stoic, yet your responses here are highly emotional. So much for stoicism.

You claim to be an existentialist, a seeker of truth yet all you know is of the rhetoric of others.

You claim to be a philosopher, but all you know is the philosophy of others.

You claim to be an atheist, but all you’ve done is swap one god for others.

You claim to know about the influences of within and without but you lack understanding in such things.

Understanding must begin with understanding yourself, only then can you hope to understand the words of others. Without this how can you possibly judge when you are being misled?

Being misled comes in many forms, the main two being intentional and unintentional, the unintentional coming from those who believe that they are right but have been misled themselves.

You believe that you are simultaneously stoic, existentialist and philosopher but you are none of these things. All of your understanding comes from the words of others.

You sit in your home reading the words of others instead of living life for yourself. Maybe you believe that you don't have the necessary life experience to draw upon but even in this you are wrong, we all have experiences to draw upon whether we know it or not. We are all products of our times and our experiences reflect this. They are no more or less relevant than those of others.

You are the sheep who believes himself the shepherd.