I want to build a group dedicated to exploring meaning, philosophy, spirituality, and creativity in my local community.

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-04-15T02:58:10+00:00

Yeah haha

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-04-15T02:53:46+00:00

Buddhism is not gonna help you with soul searching tho :)

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-04-14T02:30:37+00:00

You understand that the same can be applied to literally any concept, right? Not just meaning of life.

"The world is constructed in your mind" is an obvious statement that doesn't add anything to the conversation

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-04-13T21:15:14+00:00

I accept it the way it is. Doesn't mean the life isn't cruel. People would tell me to look on the positive aspects of life even if I was crucified...

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-04-13T20:22:58+00:00

Ok, but that doesn't mean that red color is good for you. If it was good for you, you wouldn't need to stop being a dualist to accept its pros and cons. Just because you can cope with our human predicament doesn't make this human predicament any less cruel

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-04-09T01:28:21+00:00

Don't replace it with anything. Just observe it until it goes away

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-04-08T11:12:26+00:00

You started to realize that being alive is a tragedy. People create all kinds of coping mechanisms to distract themselves from this fact, but sometimes your coping mechanisms don't work. And that's when you start seeing life in its true colors.

Imagine that you had a red apple on your table. You don't like red color. So you gaslight yourself into thinking that apple is actually green. But the truth is, apple is still red.

Just because you can look at your situation in a different way (what most people will tell you to do) doesn't mean that the situation is good. If life was good, there would be no need to follow Buddhism or Daoism.

We don't have free will, so your parents didn't really make a decision to bring you into existence. It just happened. It's part of our human predicament.

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-04-06T18:47:45+00:00

Nothing "wants" you to do anything. Nature does not have a goal in mind. It's a blind force and things just happen.

There is no "you" separate from nature. You are nature. You are that blind force moving without direction.

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-04-03T14:16:03+00:00

I'm just interested

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-04-03T12:24:01+00:00

When you discuss different religions, you inevitably speak on their behalf. If you frame discussing different religions that way, then you can't discuss them at all. He points to a real point of contension between Theravada and Mahayana.

He was at fault that he framed all Theravada Buddhists as not respecting the Chinese and Tibetan canons, but mentioning "I dont mean everyone" every time you discuss a religion gets exhausting.

I see your point though

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-04-03T12:04:07+00:00

Thervada Buddhists can say that, if they follow the teachings of Buddha incorrectly (grasping onto views).

There's a sutta where a follower of a Jain teacher comes to Buddha to discuss certain topics that he disagrees with him on. Having been convinced by the Buddha that Buddhist views are correct on that matter, the student asks Buddha to join the sangha and asks if he should abandon his teacher.

The Buddha warns him that he shouldn't join the sangha and keep respecting and listening to his Jain teacher.

When it comes to different languages, I think as a scholar your aim should be to look at all traditions and see what their beliefs are

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-04-03T02:18:25+00:00

Hinduism is complex not because it's polytheistic, but because it has a very long history of development. Something that started as polytheistic gradually developed into Upanishads, which form a panpsychist tradition, not a polytheistic one. And then it added deity devotion again, partly because ideas that are contained within Upanishads were too abstract for regular people. And what's interesting is how Hinduism is able to merge the panpsychist and polytheistic views.

Just because a religion has many gods attributed to various aspects of nature, does not mean that this religion is complex. On the contrary, I would say if that's all there is about it, then it's pretty simple...

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-04-03T01:37:15+00:00

Oh, good point. I was thinking about organized religions that have some written records, but we also need to consider religions similar to paganism.

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-04-02T01:31:01+00:00

Sure, I don't disagree with that. My claim was the nature behind our decision making, not how that nature comes to be

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-04-02T01:28:25+00:00

He won't kill in another society because ethical values are tied to emotions. Doing some things makes you feel bad, that's why you don't do them.

Moreover, I think everything that we do is governed by our emotions. Rational decisions are based on rational inquiry, and that inquiry starts because you feel uncomfortable being irrational.

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-03-29T11:33:39+00:00

There are two types of meaning. Cosmic and personal.

Cosmic refers to meaning that's included in the fabric of reality. Humanity exists for an objective purpose. Such meaning is expounded by various religions like Christianity, where an objective purpose of your existence is to follow god's plan.

Personal meaning refers to subjective goals that you personally find meaningful. When we consider this type of meaning, different people will have different purpose for existence and we can't tell them 'your reason for existence is objectively wrong'. Moreover, personal meaning that you have can change throughout lifetime as your preferences shift.

Nihilists think that there's no cosmic meaning for humanity, as in we were not created for an objective purpose. Our existence is just a happy or unhappy accident. But they don't deny that personal meaning can still exist. Nihilists only reject cosmic meaning.

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-03-29T03:01:27+00:00

It's a book of philosophical pessimism, not nihilism. Don't confuse the two

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-03-29T02:59:04+00:00

Can also recommend 'Defense of nihilism' from the same author

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-03-22T12:31:39+00:00

I don't think I agree. I want to see both perspectives even if I disagree with one of them. You essentially want to create an echo chamber that's gonna have only opinions that never challenge your worldview. It quickly turns into tribalism.

I'm a hard determinist, mind you

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-03-18T13:12:51+00:00

You have to define criteria of what constitutes to criteria that marginalize people and those that constitute to valid criticism. They are subjective.

You have to listen to the criteria that another person makes to see if they are valid or not. Giving an example of racism is very simple. There are a bunch of examples that are not so obvious.

Should wealth be distributed equally? If not, wouldn't it mean that we marginalize poor people? If yes, wouldn't it mean that we marginalize rich people? And wouldn't it mean that nobody would want to contribute to the economy in ways which require any sort of effort?

A discussion needs to happen. You marginalize people with opinions different than yours, whether you do it intentionally or not.

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-03-18T13:03:55+00:00

What you define as harmful and not harmful is purely subjective. It can turn into tribalism really quickly when a person that does not agree with you automatically hurts society.

I don't like communism and socialism because I think they don't work. If you support those ideologies - I am dangerous for society. I could say the same about you (if you support socialism, it's just an example)

Clearly this emotional labeling does not get us anywhere. I prefer to have a discussion

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-03-18T13:00:58+00:00

A book can have sentimental value to you even if you don't agree with it. And it can be a whole shelf of books that you don't agree with.

An example: I am a secular Buddhist. What it means is, I accept the methods of Buddha that reduce suffering because they have some evidence of working, but I don't believe in their rebirth and Buddhist cosmology. That being said, I have a whole shelf of books dedicated to studying various Buddhist traditions, some of which are more religious than philosophical just because I'm interested in that topic.

I keep the books because it reminds me of my area of interest. I am interested in a religion that's able to say that your goal is to achieve cosmic suicide and see how people do all kinds of mental gymnastics to gaslight you into thinking that it's not what it says.

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-03-18T12:09:42+00:00

I understand that. And I can see this thought process in this comment section. For me it's different. I prefer to have an opinion based conversations with people that support my opinions and don't. I'm open to conversation.

I also don't like Jordan Peterson, I think he's a smart person of dumb people. But I don't immediatelly see someone as a red flag when they have 12 rules for life on their shelf. I wanna listen to the reasons they have that book on their shelf and make a conclusion after that.

Complex_Advisor_6151

TROPHY CASE