This post was deleted because it is now irrelevant and was geared towards propagating the Ruthless Truth mindest.
Please read the FAQs instead to find out what this blog is about. - Gh0$T 2013
_________________________________________
Addendum: I have gone back through many of my old posts and commented on them. I am loathe to keep them as they are a reminder of the deluded zealot that I became, however, I hope that they can serve as a warning to anyone else who thinks they are enlightened. This post did not serve any purpose and was deleted because it was the first post I ever made, and was nothing more than rhetoric supporting an ideological cause. I initially believed that I should force the Bhuddist insight of Anatta on everyone to change the world!
I have studied and got a first class degree in philosophy since I started this blog, and as such, many of the early ideas presented are poorly argued. As the blog has matured and my knowledge augmented, the arguments became gradually more robust and the manner in which I wrote more accommodating of other view points.
My reason for keeping these early posts is to chart my journey and keep some of the insights I had. I was having a lot of radical insights circa late 2010 - 2011, and one of these was the realisation that the self was an illusion, and there was no division between the physical world and a self sufficient thinking entity.
As a result I became a reductionist initially and denied the existence of any kind of self. In line with modern neuroscience and philosophy of mind I will assueme there is no discrete self-sufficient entity that we call 'me'. What you refer to as 'me' is merely a collection of disparate parts where the illusion of an emergent whole arises.
I maintain that the essential self is an illusion, the concept is empty upon analysis, and share this view with Buddhists and some other forward thinking western philosophers, such as Thomas Metzinger.
What you refer to as 'me' is not bounded as a thinking thing, it is located across our cultural practices and as such it is not a real entity that we can give an identity too. The difference between many philosophers and myself is that I make a further claim that the Buddhist realisation of Anatta (not self) is obtainable through phenomenological enquiry. In this sense this blog is centred around facilitating this kind of investigation. Gh0$T - 2014
Please read the FAQs instead to find out what this blog is about. - Gh0$T 2013
_________________________________________
Addendum: I have gone back through many of my old posts and commented on them. I am loathe to keep them as they are a reminder of the deluded zealot that I became, however, I hope that they can serve as a warning to anyone else who thinks they are enlightened. This post did not serve any purpose and was deleted because it was the first post I ever made, and was nothing more than rhetoric supporting an ideological cause. I initially believed that I should force the Bhuddist insight of Anatta on everyone to change the world!
I have studied and got a first class degree in philosophy since I started this blog, and as such, many of the early ideas presented are poorly argued. As the blog has matured and my knowledge augmented, the arguments became gradually more robust and the manner in which I wrote more accommodating of other view points.
My reason for keeping these early posts is to chart my journey and keep some of the insights I had. I was having a lot of radical insights circa late 2010 - 2011, and one of these was the realisation that the self was an illusion, and there was no division between the physical world and a self sufficient thinking entity.
As a result I became a reductionist initially and denied the existence of any kind of self. In line with modern neuroscience and philosophy of mind I will assueme there is no discrete self-sufficient entity that we call 'me'. What you refer to as 'me' is merely a collection of disparate parts where the illusion of an emergent whole arises.
I maintain that the essential self is an illusion, the concept is empty upon analysis, and share this view with Buddhists and some other forward thinking western philosophers, such as Thomas Metzinger.
What you refer to as 'me' is not bounded as a thinking thing, it is located across our cultural practices and as such it is not a real entity that we can give an identity too. The difference between many philosophers and myself is that I make a further claim that the Buddhist realisation of Anatta (not self) is obtainable through phenomenological enquiry. In this sense this blog is centred around facilitating this kind of investigation. Gh0$T - 2014
Posts
1 comments:
do you hear a dog barking? when you look there is no dog!
Post a Comment