Log in

New Ideas - "cogito ergo sum"'s Journal
[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends]

Below are the 5 most recent journal entries recorded in New Ideas - "cogito ergo sum"'s LiveJournal:

Sunday, April 8th, 2007
9:21 pm
"The way things came to be"
To tell the truth it seems that Humanity was defeated long ago. Defeated in what exactly? The battle of the Way of Immortality. Which in essence would have been our ability to make our species last until something much larger and out of our hands comes and destroys us.

It seems we weren't even fighting an enemy when we were defeated either. Unless we consider ourselves the enemy. Which....in actuality we should. We lost a very quick and decisive battle on the subject of "What do we do?". But we can't truly be blamed for our loss. It was beyond our capabilities to even consider the fact that we could win the battle at the time. In the confusion of creating the very first societies we prematurely laid down some very devestating foundations and carved in stone a very dangerous idea. What were they you ask? Simple. Labour, economy, and massive territorial expansion. And that dangerous idea? The idea that Humanity was created to conquer and rule Earth. That all that we could see was created for us.

We've been plundering the Earth of it's fruits and we just don't seem to care about the fact that there's only so much to go around. Why? Because we have to feed or else our way of life dies. We don't know any better. All we know is that we must keep growing and keep expanding and keep working and keep buying and manufacturing and then dying and letting our children do the exact same. We can't be blamed for that. It's what Mother Culture has taught us since birth. That is our "Law of Life".

Generally speaking no one knows if this way of life is wrong. We've been living in such a state of "Right" for so many centuries that it's engrained so deeply into our culture it's a part of the cellular structure. Change doesn't seem like it will happen without a break up of the entire structure. But what if the only way to survive and find our Way of Immortality is to do that? To breakdown our structure and rebuild it.

But the everyday masses are so comfortable ya know? Most of us don't think about that because we don't have time too, or the knowledge. Or have that tiny ill feeling in the back of our throats that triggers the feeling that something all around us very wrong. It only lasts for a split second or so but it vaguely lingers. And strangely makes a little bit of sense.

How sad it is that for how much I love Humanity all I see is a confused and out of control organism that more than likely will meet an untimely end.

Even sadder is that I'm in no position to help no matter how much I want too...
Monday, November 13th, 2006
7:05 am
come kiss the guillotine
Transhumanism. the idea that advancing humans through subtle, as well radical, technologies to create a higher form of humanity. Some argue that this is a horrible course of action due to the fact that we may not really be able to be called humans anymore if such a change happens.

But is that true? what is it to be "no longer human"? would we still not be able to think like we do anymore? or look like we do? I think we would. But we'd be capable of more. What is so wrong with enhancing ones-self through technological means? We do it enough throughout our lives anyways. We're almost all slaves to technology. We use it to enhance our everyday lives to make it much more comfortable. So why not make it even easier to access and put it on/in the first point of interface?

Now I'm not saying let's start chopping off our limbs and replacing them with shiny new metal ones. But little, subtle things. Now i also have no clue as to what could be little and subtle but I'm sure someone can. Im just here to make it sound reasonable in the arguement of ethics and humanity.
Saturday, November 4th, 2006
8:14 pm
More on Descartes: Cutting the fat
Descartes claims that if your an Athiest, what ever causality of the universe you opt for you must believe in a finite creator, as opposed to infinite creator.

My definition of Atheism is that you believe in no creator whatsoever.
I further believe that there is no begining nor will there be an end to the universe. Things just always were and always will be. If you feel the need to explain the universe in terms of a beginning and you assign God to fullfil the role of the creator, tell me, where did this infinite god come form? The usual arguement is that he has no beginning or end. He just always was and always will be.

God is superfluous in this arguement. How is this more logical to claim, than to say that the energy of the universe has no beginning, no end and no creator? It's not! In fact it's less logical.
7:42 pm
A bit of philosophy for your evening.
How can empiricists deny mathematics as the foundations of learning when even though math is not emipirical in our reality, it is inherent to every observable behaviour of material that ever existed???

Someone tell me, I'm not well versed in empiricism.

Current Mood: studying mode
Friday, October 27th, 2006
1:36 am
rene descartes
I love his thoughts on philosophy and how he breaks everything down and builds it back up from the tiniest building block so that you know what are truths and what are not.

but i do not agree with his philosophy on how he knows god exists.

Finally, Descartes considers the idea of God that is in his mind. This idea is that of 'an infinite and independent substance,' that is infinitely perfect. Where does this idea come from? Such an idea requires an explanation beyond himself, because Descartes himself is a finite and thus imperfect being - the fact that he can doubt is proof enough of that. (It is impossible to imagine God having doubts.) Moreover, that explanation must have as much formal reality as the initial idea of infinite perfection. This, then, is his proof for God's existence:

1.We have an idea of that which has infinite perfection.
2.The idea we have of ourselves entails finitude and imperfection.
3.According to the principle of sufficient reason, there must be as much reality (formally or eminently) in the cause of any idea as (objectively) in the idea itself.
4.Therefore, the idea we have of infinite perfection originated from a being with infinite formal perfection.
5.It follows that the idea could not have originated in ourselves or our ideas of ourselves.
6.The origin of the idea could only be the real existence of the infinite being that we call God.

i do not agree simply due tot he fact that descartes was trying to forget the fact that he knew about god and grew up in an era where god was everything to almost everyone. god could not simply be an idea he had an innate knowledge of (even after trying to forget everything he was taught in his childhood) because the idea HAD to have been drilled into his head from a very young age. and taking into account the human brain and how it retains knowledge the things he learned as a child could never vanish from his head. no matter how much of a genius you are, no matter how dedicated a scientist and philosopher you are you simply cant unlearn that which affected so much during your young life (age 1-5 or so). and even say you could the idea of infinite perfection is not a strange idea that suddenly pops into our head. it is my belief that the idea of perfection is such a profounding idea is because we realize our own mortality. and when we realize that one day we will die and nothing more will come of us we think of perfection. to reach our utmost wanted potential in order to feel as if though our life was not a waste. it may not be for absolutely everyone (as im sure with parts of descartes philosophy doesnt match with everyone), but for when a person realizes their genius or potential they feel as if though this is what is expected of themselves.

it is my belief that any creature that has the ability to realize themselves and their own mortality will strive for their feeling of perfection. it may not be big or small but it is then up to the individual to decide on what is perfection. for every creature will have a different perspective on it.

it seems to me that humans who devote themselves to a god devote themselves to the persuit of perfection.

god created man in his image; man created god in his aspiration. perfection is a lie. you can never reach it, only to hope to make the best of it. and why would god put the idea of such a thing in our heads when all some/most of us do is torment ourselves into trying to reach it? To devoting ourselves into becoming better and better at all costs? In that way god is not perfect. Since he did not create the perfect being that did not strive for perfection.
About LiveJournal.com