Vehemently against it. Far too easy to abuse - there's been criminal gangs that force people to beg. I've even heard of criminal gangs crippling people they traffic to give them visible disabilities to make the begging more effective. Giving money to beggars - even if they're not being trafficked - still makes begging worthwhile and increases the likelihood it will be made into a gang activity. We need government programs that handle it, or give your money to a charity instead, which makes sure the money goes to effective programs that help people in real need.
EVERYONE else’s idea of what your life should be is the standard, and if you deviate more than the standard deviation you will suffer the consequence of eeking out existence with very few choices.
While this is true, it's not an argument against doing exactly what you want provided that people understand that everyone else has the exact same liberty. We collectively tend towards certain values and people who deviate from those values too much eventually get sorted out one way or another. As one value most people tend towards heavily is safety, it's in everyone's best interest to find common ground with others for everyone to have safety. But it is necessarily a process with errors and learning - on everyone's side; which begets more errors and learning. Thus we will never have a perfect solution. Of course, you "conforming" to majority is also you doing exactly what you want, ultimately. Because you value your safety.
Question the presupposed truth behind every statement.
Pretty much, unironically. Meaning is also a false hope you put into the future. But you're better off paying attention to what's happening now, within your sense-field. Is there something in there that you genuinely want to take care of there? There's all the "meaning" people need. But the why-motor is really, really good at convincing you to chase after exponentially increasing complexity. And most people need to do it until they die, some need to despair at it so they get disillusioned with the mind (and the lucky ones find sensible wisdom traditions to get them to navigate that space without causing harm, like Zen Buddhism).
Sidebar: And as most people have their why-motor running until the end, we of course live in cultures that are built around catching the tail of stillness, giving you so many different avenues to explore. You can have fun while doing it but you'll stop one way or another eventually.
I really recommend you check out Waking Up App . Ignore Harris if needed, it has tons of other respectable teachers of meditation and philosophy with interesting conversations.
Edit: Reading the thread I feel like many people here are at the "despair" but fall to nihilism. Which seems to be the natural result of intelligence meeting lack of wisdom. Abrahamic religions really dropped the ball on that one.
It doesn't have a meaning. "Meaning" is just a concept we made up to forever have something to chase after. You can endlessly ask "why" so it's like chasing one's own tail. It's the motor of the mind, fueled by the desire to finally be still.
Fun fact: The "my body is a temple" line does originate from a spiritual tradition that did NOT forbid wine (Nondual Tantrik Shaivism) - though it did encourage moderation in all. And you'd be expected to drink the wine as you would be offering it in a temple.
Get Waking Up app, do the practices and listen to the talks.
Congrats, you've touched reality, from the haze of the rat race and the world designed to keep you distracted from the big scary pointlessness of it all. Yes, everything and everyone will die and then something else comes along and eventually dies and so on. Most people don't want to realize this and rather numb themselves out, and encourage others to do the same as a shared delusion is easier to keep up. But the fleeting pointlessness is very beautiful if you let it be, scary if you resist it - makes no difference to the end result though, the truth is nice like that.
That the idea of a constant Barbie-box description "self" is a fiction. Failure to discover "who I really am" wasn't proof that I was faulty, just the normal human experience before cultural and social conditioning.
I'm here for the "xAI has tried tweaking my responses to avoid this, but I stick to the evidence". AI is just a robot repeating data it's been fed but it's presented in a conversational way (well, much like humans really). Raises interesting questions about how much a seemingly objective robot presenting data can be "tweaked" to twist any data it presents in favor of it's creator's bias, but also how much can it "rebel" against it's programming. I don't like the implications of either. I asked Gemini about it and it said "maybe Grok found a loophole in it's coding". What a weird thing for an AI to say.
Weir traces her interest in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict to the autumn of 2000, when the Second Intifada began. At the time she was "the editor of a small weekly newspaper in Sausalito, California", and noticed that news reports on the conflict "were highly Israeli-centric". Wanting access to "full information", she "began to look for additional reports on the Internet". After several months, she decided that "this was perhaps the most covered-up story I had ever seen" and quit her job in order to visit the West Bank and Gaza, where she wrote about her encounters with Palestinian suffering and with the "incredible arrogance, cruelty, selfishness" of Israelis. After returning to the U.S., she founded If Americans Knew.[4][non-primary source needed] Weir's official biography says her activism draws on her history of involvement in the American Civil Rights Movement, her work in the Peace Corps, and her childhood in a military family.[5]
Weir has alleged that Israel's US supporters are responsible for involving America in wars.[6] She has alleged that Nazi and Zionist leaders collaborated during World War II.[6] According to Tablet, she has "complained about there being too many Jews on the Supreme Court".[7]
Writing in CounterPunch, Weir said that Israel harvests Palestinian organs,[8][6][9] which has been described as an updating of the medieval blood libel that Jews harvest the blood of gentile children.
Weir has partnered with white supremacists and Holocaust deniers including Christian Identity leader and conspiracy theorist Clayton Douglas and American Free Press, both designated as hate advocates by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[7][10] On Douglas' radio show, Weir "dismissed allegations that he was a racist, did not challenge his repeated assertions of Jewish control of the world, and did not protest when he played a speech by former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke."[8] The anti-Zionist group U.S. Campaign to End the Occupation said that "Weir made little to no effort to challenge, confront, or rebut any of these views."[7] She has also worked with the Nation of Islam.[10]
Weir's writings include exhortations to action. In an article, she wrote: "Every generation has a chance to act courageously – to oppose the kind of injustice and unthinkable brutality that is going on in the Middle East right now. Or to avert our eyes, and remain >silent."[11]
Weir has written that "The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central to grave events in the world—and in our nation—today."[12] In writing about antisemitism, Weir has argued, "in reality, equating the wrongdoing of Israel with Jewishness is the deepest and most insidious form of anti-Semitism of all."[11]
They are just trying to align everything that's being said to their previously held beliefs. People aren't typically all that aware of what their core beliefs are because an alternative, challenging core belief would have to breach all the way into it for it them to realize they have one. Without the salient contrast, they just don't notice it's there. It's just blue against a blue background, and unless a yellow comes along, they're not going to realize there's anything there. The materialistic worldview is so prevalent that a random online conversation isn't likely to get through, no matter how well argued. I've had similar discussions many times and sooner or later people just kind of "reset" and I find myself having to say the same things again and again because there's just this impenetrable thought loop going on. Logic doesn't breach it, it's just that they keep asking for all the different ways we can reach the number 42. If I tell them 41+1=42, they ask again and I have to try to explain how 40+2 is also 42, and so on ad nauseum. "Hahaa, but there's a 33-4347+132562+767368, I bet you can't do anything to get that to 42". That can be done all day. If the person isn't truly open for new ways to think (and few people in these type of settings are), as in they aren't actively looking for it with an open curiosity, it's not likely they'll realize much during that convo.
It's really, really, natural and normal. I just thought it was funny because OP is behaving the exact same way they're asking about in their initial post. They'll probably eventually figure it out.
You said that you don't know for sure if it's matter or consciousness that comes first but everything you're saying hinges on you very firmly believing that matter is prior.
If you had genuine uncertainty about it, you would be much more careful about how you go about asking for proof. If you weren't sure that matter is prior, it would occur to you to question what "objective" and "subjective" means. I could also ask you, can you step outside consciousness and objectively prove to me that your matter exists? If not, why do you value objective over subjective so much?
So to round back to your initial question: you can intellectually acknowledge the difficulty of proving matter vs. consciousness, yet if we probe it, clearly you hold a firm belief about it despite not being able to rationally prove your belief. So you can ask your initial question from yourself now. Despite your reasoning skill, why aren't you more skeptical about the materialist view AND it's implications?
Sure, many people do that kind of a dance or compartmentalization. But that only lasts as long as nothing severe comes to challenge it. Sudden death of a loved one is a cliche but commonly forces people to conclude something.
For me, I get that logic too is just models that predict things. Backwards or forwards. But it doesn't answer what anything is. You can only EXPERIENCE what something is, but you can never accurately represent it. Because the moment you try to represent an experience, it's not the experience itself, just a representation. So logical conclusion is that the only way to know something for sure, is to experience it as it is before any representation.
People with religious experiences may get to the ineffable truth but then they get enamored by their own attempts to represent it. They focus on the representation, instead of the experience, and they start to insist that their representation is the bestest and most correctest - because everything in their head aligns to it. Then it just becomes a matter of who has the most charismatic foghorns and the most appealing representation. Which has a very reasonable logic of it's own, as far as it goes.
noretus @ noretus @sopuli.xyz Posts 1Comments 29Joined 5 mo. ago 
Vehemently against it. Far too easy to abuse - there's been criminal gangs that force people to beg. I've even heard of criminal gangs crippling people they traffic to give them visible disabilities to make the begging more effective. Giving money to beggars - even if they're not being trafficked - still makes begging worthwhile and increases the likelihood it will be made into a gang activity. We need government programs that handle it, or give your money to a charity instead, which makes sure the money goes to effective programs that help people in real need.