Peace, Love and Harmony aren't universal.

"Condemned to be free": for that reason Heidegger absolved Himself of any existentialist misunderstandings. He's not one.

 

So because you love your mate you'll eat her. Good to know.

It would seem to me as though you are nailing human belief onto natural necessity and calling it true.

So you would leave your sister, brother, baby, mother, father behind and let them die because you saw no other way? By your own definition that makes you a cruel human being.

 

You seem to feel as though your thoughts have caused disagreement. I already acknowledge that our higher functions are what give our understanding of the world the meaning. I simply say that our higher functions have no true bearing upon reality as it is.

 

Well then, you are simply wrong.


wait a minute??????


I thought you have stated before that you felt our thoughts are what gives shape to reality??



Which is it, it can't be both.

 

There is human reality and then there is true reality. We shape the reality that we perceive but not the reality as it truly is. On a side note I am glad to see that I am wrong according to your opinions.

 

Contradictory statements considering just WTF do you propose we use as a guideline for "reality as it is" if not our perceptions?

THAT is where your concepts fall apart.

If you can completely step out of human perception and then communicate back to me, then maybe I will give your ideas some credence.

You seem to fail to see that YOU are also subject to this erroneous perception of reality, so why is your take on it more viable than mine or anyone else's???

 

I am neither a praying mantis nor a wolf so no, why would I because of those (YOUR) examples?

So because a praying mantis eats their mate after making love, love is a fallacy?

 

I do not claim to have a more viable opinion. Also I cannot give any examples of what reality is without perception except only to say that it is. Yet this would be a truly unsatisfactory answer for one such as yourself. I have given up trying to specifically label the universe because regardless of my labels it will continue to do as it has always done. Putting thought into something is only going to take one so far. Thought or more precisely organized thought has it's limits. In closing your views upon the world are no more wrong than mine and never once have I actually claimed such.

I think you are completely misunderstanding or misrepresenting my words. Besides that you have yet to show me an actual example of love in nature without putting the traditional human spin upon it.

 

Perhaps I might be misunderstanding you completely but it is not a lack of trying from my side

The love newborn animals get from their parents is not an example of love in nature?

 

It is an example of necessity. To continue on this planet those animals must reproduce. To sustain the growth of the reproduced they must tend to it. Does the sun or the rain love a flower or a tree? No.

 

Yes, love is a necessity indeed!

I agree the sun and rain do not love the plants. They are not beings in the first place (i understand it was ment as a metaphor)

So the motherfox does not love her newborn pups?

 

Big error in the way in which this convo is going is trying to anthropomorphize other animals and species.

We see certain behaviors and then superimpose our emotional response to said action.
In that respect Indy is correct.

Problem arises when we look at the brain structures and where/what is responsible for emotional response. The areas of the brain responsible for emotional responses and bonding behaviors are older brain structures than the frontal cortex, which we humans use to ascribe complex valuation to the emotional response, such as love & hate.
All mammals share these brain structures and by logical progression, also have the capacity to experience emotional responses, regardless of the labels our human frontal cortex has associated to them.
In this respect Asmo is correct.

May sound trivial, but it is important to remember what part of the brain does what, and whats parts we share in common with other species if you want to start applying human motives and intentions to non-human behaviors.

 

Well, I did not ment love like how it appears in a disney version of those animals. But love is not restricted to humans at all. Even if it was or if we are talking about the human version of love alone, I do not understand how it's a fallacy by default?

Indy - Perhaps you could give another example or better yet, explain it?

 

But green? Would green by any un-judged colour still be green for the fool? And evolution have it's being on arbitrary planets.

Evolution to some christians is neither hard fact nor theory, but the worded opinion over the meaning of opinionation in Biology. It is for evolution that the reverse Judged idea for Green occurred. Would a green species by any other colour still be green to the senses. And planets could truly team somewhere with life within the celestial sphere.

Naa..h, peaceful love is only called universal, but primarily judged particular. That is never the fools way.

 

Ghost World

 

This song seems so fitting here..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzTBsbXFY7I"]Dead Can Dance - How Fortunate The Man With None (With lyrics) - YouTube

satan is certainly real and does exist, and is evil. There is true evil in this world. But, there is also true goodness. I don't think peace, love, harmony, grace and kindness are flawed but I do think that extreme violence and extreme suffering can, and do, overshadow the good in life. I sometimes think that if humans are capable of perfecting anything at all, we've been capable of perfecting Hell itself.

 

Why is love a fallacy? Because in outward reality it doesn't exist pure and simple. Our emotional responses to outward and inward stimuli can make us feel as though we love yet in reality we do not. Love exists within human reality and is therefore real for us yet how much does that actually mean within the universe at large. I have been trying to provide evidence of this but obviously this is another matter that has too many interpretations according to human knowledge so I don't think it can go any further within the current age.

You certainly have an orthodox view upon life. Hopefully it serves you well.

 

I don't know if orthodox is a word that's ever been used to describe anything about me before, ha. I used to be almost painfully pollyanna optimistic but, humans decided to beat that right out of me. I suppose I do wish that life could be more virtuous. I can say that I always refer to life as "humanity" and never, ever "human kind" or "man kind". I know too much lack in kindness, really.

p.s.

I was better being optimistic. Much better.