Tolstoy is saying much more here than simply “Desire is the root of dissatisfaction.” And love, but defined more as our unique and profound capacity for selflessness, is the only desire incapable of dissatisfaction.

I quoted Jesus; arrogance is at the root of all the hate and evil in then world.

Wow thanks that’s very nice of you. What’s your group all about?

What’s said about knowing and not knowing is what I wish people would get. All these social ideological sects that are appearing in society is because people think THEY are the only correct ones. Political and theological groups can be some of the most egregious in this manner.

Omg I could not agree more! That’s what Socrates took his life trying to teach, and die a martyr to.

People talk more than think. And usually think what others have talked to them about.

Beautifully said! I think people like Jesus would’ve agreed, considering the extent he would call out the dogma of his day; promising to believe something as unquestionably true would be an example of an oath: “Do not take an oath at all.” - Matt 5:34

Any knowing is a knowledge. Our knowledge of time for example or even of the experience.

Just because blind men have attached their words and beliefs unto Jesus’ via the New Testament ever since, distorting the crap out of it 45 thousand different ways, that doesn’t make it what Jesus was really trying to say. “Do not take an oath at all.” - Matt 5:34; of course making the promise to believe things as unquestionably true cna be catorgorized as an oath.

I could not agree more. Have you considered his teaching in its purest form via the precepts of the Sermon On the Mount - Matt 5-7, but interpreted more objectively? Including and especially the one about oaths (promising to believe things as unquestionably true would be an example of taking an oath in my opinion); “do not take an oath at all.” - Matt 5:34.

I also noticed that what he meant by we humans being the salt of the earth and light of the world (Matt 5:13), he was pointing towards our unique and profound abilities for selflessness and knowledge in contrast to nature. Selflessness is the salt: Without humans on an earth (a conscious capable being on a planet), there’s nothing to be as selfless as we’re capable of being; the extent we can push past our instincts in favor of where knowledge takes us. And knowledge is the light: Without humans, there wouldn’t be anything to give life to any knowledge (including of a God) to the degrees we can in contrast to nature, and be able to retain and transfer it (keep it living so to speak; “the living God” - Matt 16:16 ); not to mention anything with the ability to measure morality the same way we do our knowledge of time, and to act upon it and apply that knowing to our environment.

Have you considered Tolstoy’s perspective on religion? That knowledge is knowledge no matter its source, no matter what we’ve rendered it ever since its been revealed and labeled. Tolstoy felt as though Jesus (who I equate as a moral philosopher/activist) was simply teaching a teaching that gives meaning to the life of a conscious capable being, and not what we now call “religjon.” All the blind men ever since that have applied their blindness to his teaching shouldn’t lead one to think that that’s what Jesus was ultimately really trying to say.

I agree. However, ignorance (lack of knowledge) is an inevitability, this would of course include the woes of taking oaths (promising to believe things as unquestionably true); “Do not take an oath at all.” - Matt 5:34.

Have you considered Tolstoy’s perspective on religion? That knowledge is knowledge no matter its source, no matter what we’ve rendered it ever since its been revealed and labeled. Tolstoy felt as though Jesus (who I equate as a moral philosopher/activist) was simply teaching a teaching that gives meaning to the life of a conscious capable being, and not what we now call “religion.” All the blind men ever since that have applied their blindness to his teaching shouldn’t lead one to think that that’s what Jesus was ultimately really trying to say.

But almost certainly the illiterate peasant that had such an effect on him would have considered supernatural miracles to be literal historical facts.

What makes you so certain of this?

The intent isn’t to impress, to meet anyone’s standards or for any amount of vanity for the sake of myself, but purely to teach. Just as long as the knowledge is being diffused to whatever degree; I’m honored to be a part in its diffusing.

I appreciate your consideration.

Wow thank you, it’s my genuine pleasure my friend!

Haha no I totally hear you! That’s why it took me so long to reply as well because I wanted to make sure I wasn’t feeling rushed through it and had plenty of time to really take my time with it.

Hey again, sorry if I scared you away, I know the extremes of it are delicate and unattractive. Just wanted to clear the air a little more regarding the morality being a spook thing; would things like morality being a consequence of consciousness a good way of describing what you mean? Like our sense of time? That it’s our ability to be concious to the extent we are that gives birth to these things in the first place? If so, my refute—still humbly ignorant to what you meant exactly—would be that just because there’s no one around to be concious of the tree falling in the woods doesn’t mean it’s not happening, and that it didn’t exist. We’ve came up with ways to understand that xyz object(s) are this or that years old and etc. It doesn’t mean things like morality and time aren’t real in my opinion, I think it means that there’s something that actually exists able to comprehend them and to organize something like time the way we do/did, and to imagine morality in our minds to the extent we do in contrast to anything; that yes, the fact that we’re concious of such things does give life them, indeed. I think it points more in the direction of the significance of my point of view on it ironically. That it’s more of an obligation therefore even, or a responsibility to be as selfless as possible.

Our ability to love and be selfless in contrast to anything else, correct?

Love.

Can you explain the last bit a little more? What do you mean by “centering love?” And if I’m understanding you correctly (I don’t think I am, not because I think you’re wrong but because I think I’m stupid lol) you’re saying that we would exclude people with these conditions? Why? Wouldn’t our knowledge of love (selflessness) only lead to more of an understanding of variables like these? Thus more of a lack of fear and less of an anger or hate for them? I hesitate to respond without knowing exactly what you meant (I fear I’m only making a fool of myself by doing so) so disregard this last bit if it’s not lining up with what you intended by it.

And thanks so much again for taking to the time! It’s a relief finally talking to someone other than someone blinded by their belief about this stuff, despite it potentially discrediting what I have to say—I’m here not for myself, and certainly not for any amount of vanity for the sake of myself, but for nothing but the truth, and being wrong only leads one more to exactly that: the truth.

So I’d love to hear your argument as to why morality is a spook. Like Nietzsche suggested im assuming? You’re full on suggesting that it’s not real? I like to chalk stuff like this up to nothing but words of the fortunate. My refute would simply be: you go to war, come back and tell me morality isn’t real (Socrates and Leo Tolstoy were war veterans). I like to bring up this story I heard a while back as well, in short: a mother from a third world country is forced to watch as her children are butchered in front of her, then their remains stuffed into an oven, cooked, and this poor woman (I hope your doing nothing but imagining yourself as her in her situation at this point by the way) is forced to eat them, yep, she’s forced to eat the remains of her cooked, chopped up, dead children. Idk man. You look Martin Luther King Jr. in the eyes (hell, even Abraham Lincoln) and tell him morality isn’t real; that the extent racism and segregation was practiced isn’t bad, and it’s not good either, it’s just, idk, nothing you’re saying? I honestly haven’t bothered learning Nietzsche’s argument towards it, I guess I’m guilty of close-mindedness in this account, I’ve always felt as though the very idea of it not being real as an absolute absurdity, like saying we don’t need air to breathe or 2+2 is 3.

Well, I wouldn’t say I’m boiling it down to exclusively sense perception necessarily; the whole chain of influence thing is nothing but the end result of me thinking all about where things like morality and desire come from exactly (if morality is the basis of things, would there be a basis to morality? And i just kept going), I’d be the first to admit it’s inaccuracy, if any. And I feel as though giving even a crude representation of the basis of things is enough to get my point accross regarding imagination and that love is the greatest teacher, and especially that desire in general stems from nothing but our sense organs reacting to our environment, and the extent of how concious we are of it happening. My intent is more to shed a little light on the barbarianism of things like our carnal instinct or to even watch TV, or more specifically—vanity and desire for the sake of oneself; that it’s what a collection of concious monkeys would aim for, and that humans are the most capable of the opposite, to even suffer to abstain from it; God or not.

Yes so this topic has always been a very delicate one. I personally completely agree with Gandhi for example, that who’s to say how many less people would have died if we would’ve “given ourselves up to the butchers knife” in World War 2, opposed to do what we’ve always done throughout history: retaliate. This is where Tolstoy’s Personal, Social, and Divine Conceptions of life come into play. Peace can be reached, but it comes down to individuals willingness within each generation to give themselves up for it, to die a martyr to it by teaching it via exemplifying it (Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one think of changing themselves." - Leo Tolstoy). Presently, and ever since forever, selfishness has been the emphasis (something for something), that’s why this idea to you and I still sounds absurd. However, I think in the very far future, the opposite will be the social norm (something for nothing). “If men were Angel’s, there would be no need for government.” - James Madison (i think this quote coupled with this perspective would line up with your anarchist perspective—I believe in a future where government is no longer necessary, but through a government; a time where government is no longer necessary, but on the other side of the most amount of government.) This is what I meant about how men of the past would imagine humans flying in the air like birds or the idea of organizing ourselves around something else besides a King, Tyrant or Dictator. Selflessness to even the most extreme degrees, ultimately, to the the point where even “rights” this and “individualism” that has become obsolete, dare I say.

The context was someone slapping you in the cheek, and you offering them your other cheek in return, and taking this context and applying it to bigger ones like even War, all the way down to racism, the tailgater or the bully at school. The bigger contexts are obviously the more controversial, and require the most will to fulfill, but the bully at school? Doesn’t seem like the worst thing to respond to them with collective love opposed to collective hate. We only breed the worst of the world by reacting to what we hate with more hate. There’s no future that consists of a century of people finally either eliminating or locking up all the worst of the world of that present time (something for something) and living happily ever after. The only true cure is love (something for nothing) and our knowledge of it, and a newfound understanding that desire for the sake of oneself (the need to retaliate or the fear for oneself that only leads to anger) is selfish and barbaric and only ever leads to more hate, anger, and evil in the world, i.e., the “vicious cycle.” Only when we no longer see the fulfillment of our greatest desires as being our highest happiness—individually, are we able to move beyond the inherently self-obssessed barbarian that’s still within all of us, to a future where at least violence is considered obsolete—collectively.

I’d love to share more examples of the Sociology and Psychology within religion if you’re interested but I don’t want to end up making this comment to much of a chore to read than it already is lol so ill just give this one for now: It’s only what a person thinks that can truly defile them: “What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.” - Matt 15:11 "Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.” - Matt 15:17 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+15&version=NIV

So if you convince yourself that others are xyz because someone told you that, then that’s what it becomes. Like racism, or hate between nations (via either their governments or oaths that have been taken to the idea of a God or Afterlife and their pasts, or both), or convinced that we should throw the supposed messiah up on a cross, or not allow women to be pastors, or discriminate towards gay people, or not to bother with new knowledge or foreign influences because supposition this or assumption that, etc. Taking oaths—to yourself or to someone or something else, I guess I call it, but only because I’m ignorant to the proper term that’s probably already been invented.

Yes yes I’ve heard this dozens of times, I’m not saying we’re the only living things capable of selflessness, I’m saying we’re the ones that presently hold the most capacity for it on this planet, and that have ever existed—as far as we know of course. Both to not only imagine it in our heads (our imaginations being what’s truly unparalleled, though I can see the argument toward the idea that other species might very well have more ability in this regard, its seemingly impossible (from my more ignorant point of view) to say for sure obviously, but we do reign supreme in going about it, expressing it to one another, acting upon it, and applying it to our environment) but of course the extent we can even toil and suffer in applying it to our environment, not only individually, but especially collectively.

I’m saying that we don’t teach the value and potential we hold for selflessness in public schools and to the masses in general because it’s to busy being tied up under some man made thing being held as unquestionably true via the influences of a God and an Afterlife. I’m very, very, anti religious, however I’m the complete opposite when it comes to the substance of religion; of the potential we hold to even giving ourselves up entirley for a purpose or reason outside of ourselves, because it’s the truth, dare I say. The fact that we hold so much potential for selflessness—not only individually but especially collectively, is as true as we need air to breathe, or that when adding 2 things with another 2 things, we get 4 of them. A God on the other hand? I have no idea (I myself believe in a creator of some kind, but i agree with Jesus that anything more than this comes from evil: a worry, a need, a fear for oneself; a selfishness) and I know that to suggest that I do is to only put even more potential divison in the world than there already is.

That’s what morality is though—love and hate, good and evil.

Justice from a man’s point of view would equate to revenge or vengeance (something for something). Justice from the point of view of a God or creator of some kind would be the opposite (something for nothing): infinitely forgiving, love unconditionally.

Still not Supervillians.

Of course it’s relevant. You’re talking about civilians that make up the real world. I’m talking about people with Super powers that don’t even exist.

Lmao, it’s so hard to argue that point I have to admit.

Ultimately I think there would be Superhero ways to contain SuperVillians. You honestly think Lex would be able to get out again and again from something like that? Can’t help but to think something like that would be the way to go.

Hate doesn’t know any better, love does.