Archive for the Philosophy Category

Zeitgeist: Moving Forward

Posted in Anarchy, Atheism, AWESOME, Capitalism, Christianity, Communism, conspiracy, crime, Defiance, economics, Environmentalism, Evolution, Experiment, Free-speech, Free-thought, futurism, God, happy, Health, Internet, Islam, Leftism, Libertarianism, LOGIC, medicine, Mind-control, Morality, Philosophy, police, Politics, Protesting, Psychology, Purpose, Quotes, Religion, resources, Science, Skepticism, Slavery, Socialism, theory, youtube, Zeitgeist on January 30, 2011 by FЯEEDO

This movie was by far my favorite of the three. There wasn’t actually anything I disagreed with this time. None of the religious conspiracy theories. I’m very impressed, I recommend you watch it.

Pseudophilosophy with Freedo

Posted in discordianism, Free-thought, HUMOR, Philosophy, Religion, strange, surreal on December 14, 2010 by FЯEEDO

Imaginary George: Freedo, what do you think happens when we die?

Freedo: Death is merely the realization that nothing exists.

George: But…that doesn’t make any sense…

Freedo: I apologize George, you need clarification. Allow me to take us back to another conversation I have had that may shine some light on this conundrum.

*waves hands around, imaginary portal appears*


Imaginary Steve: So Freedo, why do you think there is something as opposed to nothing?

Freedo: Perhaps a better question is “what’s the difference?”

Steve: Explain.

Freedo: We, in the something, ask ourselves “how did we come from nothing?” Well, I’m sure that those in the nothing are asking themselves the same question, except “how did we come from something?”.

To us the question is baffling but, when you think about it, there are probably a lot more things that don’t exist than those things which do…so it must be even MORE baffling for them.

Steve: Come on now, Freedo. Be serious for a change.

Freedo: Not so fast Steve! You may say “NOTHING IS NOTHING and SOMETHING IS SOMETHING, lets just leave it at that!” But humor me for a moment, perhaps the somethings are only real to other somethings and the nothings are only real to other nothings, but not to each other!


George: I see… you’re saying is that we become nothings when we die and it is in this sense that we “realize nothing exists” for the other nothings become real to us and the something that was before becomes the new nothing?

Freedo: Precisely.

George: Well….that is all very interesting but–

Imaginary Jack: May I interject into this conversation?

Freedo: Shut up Jack, you’re imaginary.

Jack: So is George. >_<

George: Wait, what? This is getting weird…

Freedo: That’s correct George, you see, you are one of those nothings I was speaking of. You had not realized this because, too you, I am the nothing.

George: That actually makes a lot of sense…I think I understand now.

Freedo: I have to go now. You’re a good man, George, I look forward to meeting you when I leave my somethings.

George: The same. Goodbye Freedo.

“The highest form of self awareness is realizing you’re just a character in someone else’s dream”

~ Anonymous

Moral Nihilism

Posted in Anarchy, Atheism, Faith, Free-thought, happy, LOGIC, Morality, Nihilism, Philosophy, Purpose, Religion, Skepticism on October 23, 2010 by FЯEEDO

It has been my humble observation that many of the non-religious are confused with the topic of morality and ethics in how it would be rationally extended from their particular breed of reasoning. Don’t get me wrong, the religious aren’t the masters of logical consistency, but this is specifically directed towards the unbeknownst  confusion  asserted from those who claim the negation of faith. By confused I refer to internal inconsistency within their perspective. In this blog-post I will discuss how the rational extension of non-religiosity in regard to ethics leads to Nihilism.

Regardless of how unpleasant it may seem to refer to morality as an illusion, the intellectually-honest non-religious individual must do so in-order to hold internal consistency.

First, a definition of terms; morality and ethics is a description of values and behavior that one ought to have. It is not simply describing  behavior that is but rather behavior that ought to be.

To define ethics as simply a type of behavior in no way means that one ought to behave that way. The famous philosopher, David Hume, aptly pointed out that it is logically impossible to derive an ought from an is–or a value from a fact. So while you may define Altruism, compassion, and kindness as ethical behavior, you are really just describing a type of behavior that is, not one that ought to be.

It’s important to properly understand that ethics and morality is based on how things ought to be. To say giving food to the homeless is kind is completely different than saying that one ought to give food to the homeless. The statement that giving food to the homeless is kind, that is a fact. But to derive a value out of that, saying being kind is a value, that does not logically derive from the fact that giving food to the homeless is kind. You could also say the statement that beating up the homeless for fun is unkind is a fact–so would you then say that you ought to value being unkind, simply because it is a fact? No, all you are doing is stating facts and you’ll never get a value out of that. If someone kills another in cold-blood, it is a fact, it is what is whether or not one ought to have done it.

Now, remember, saying one ought to do this or do that is entirely different than the subjective statement of “I prefer to do this or that”. For example, I prefer water to soda but that does not mean I say one ought to drink water. A Nihilist may be reading this now who understands and agrees with everything I’ve written so far. Most likely they are  someone who would say “I prefer people to be kind” or “I strongly dislike killing”, but they acknowledge that as their own subjective preference and they don’t believe in any kind of morality. So subjective preference, of preferring things to be a certain way, is in no way at all what morality and ethics is about. In this sense, Nihilists are Egoists. The Egoist who says self-pleasure is moral has purely a semantical difference with Nihilism, in actuality there’s no difference in how they behave.

To pull morality out of a hat, to derive an ought from an is, requires some convoluted sense of faith. So if you’re an individual who claims to be non-religious and asserts no code of morality then, congratulations, your ethics are consistent with your reasoning which produced your rejection of faith.

I also find it necessary to point out two different attitudes of Nihilism; Passive and Active.

Passive Nihilism is indicative of a decline in a personal sense of control. It is characterized by the inability to create, or in the extreme to react. The Passive Nihilist is one who, when faced with the world’s uncertainty, withdraws and refuses to engage the world. For him, uncertainty is a sufficient condition not to proceed through life, and so paralyzed by fear of the unknown and unknowable he does nothing or even to the extent that it can no longer be bared which results in insanity or suicide. The famous philosopher Frederich  Nietzsche described this condition as “the weary Nihilism that no longer attacks..a passive Nihilism, a sign of weakness”.

Active Nihilism on the other hand, is indicative of a relative increase in a sense of personal control. The Active Nihilist sees freedom where the Passive Nihilist sees loss or meaninglessness. He chooses action and creation instead of passivity and withdrawal. For him, the lack of objective standards of moral truth motivates self-created standards and criteria. The Active Nihilist  is not active despite  the unknown but because of it. He possesses a store of creative energy and power which allows him to impose personal meaning on the world while never forgetting that he is the source of it all and progenitor of that meaning. He is heroic in this sense, facing the world with courage and purpose.

This short inquiry is not exhaustive in the least and would be chancy to change any minds but I felt it necessary of my own desire to give my two cents on the matter. Nihilism can be a very confusing thing for some people, especially those who see Nihilists like me who would easily confuse me with come kind of Gandhi character espousing robust Altruism. But so I don’t disappoint their mis-guided view of Nihilism as a meaningless, heartless and void of all things good I’ll close off by saying that I wish all my Nihilist friends well while they go brutally anal rape some crippled people and blow-up a church.

Why Politics is Not the Answer

Posted in Anarchy, Free-thought, LOGIC, Philosophy, Politics on October 23, 2010 by FЯEEDO

Government exists for the purpose of giving the illusion that we are a civilized people. Government does not actually make us civilized–quite the opposite–we have government because we are not civilized. If government were to suddenly collapse we would descend into even more chaos than we are in. The average person is irresponsible and irrational. So politics is really the mechanism of how to control and get around these irrational people. It does not actually solve the problem. If solving the problem is your objective then politics is not what you should be concerned with. Is the solution how to control irrationality or is the solution how to have less rationality?

I am concerned with what people do, not what they are allowed to do.

A Conversation Regarding the Universe to be Consciousness

Posted in Conversion, Faith, Free-thought, LOGIC, Philosophy, Science on July 17, 2010 by FЯEEDO

Dean Rose: Today marks the HARMONIC CONVERGENCE arrival of the 9th Wave of Cosmic Consciousness energy from the Number 1 Grand Central Sun leading into the change of 2012 – everybody be sure to radiate the message of love, peace, joy, truth, enlightenment, abundance and positivity!! Our intentions will define whatever future we will get, so think of a good one today and tomorrow!! The Universe is listening…
Me: Damn, I lost my tinfoil hat…

Dean Rose: All is consciousness my friend 🙂

Me: Ok, I’ll humor you on this.

What do you mean and what is your logic?

Dean Rose: Hmmm how to say it easily…

Me: You cannot prove that the material world is an illusion. It is possible but unprovable. There is no reason to believe in something which is unprovable.

Dean Rose: It is very easily provable, if you have a powerful electron microscope, you’d be able to see that all physical matter is made of vibrational energy which interracts directly with the mind of the observer, ergo the physical Universe is a product of consciousness. The exterior world comes to our senses as waves of this energy which our sensestransmit as electrical impulses to our brain where we decode the information and build a picture of reality on the screen of our consciousness. What looks like it’s on the outside is in reality, through the looking glass, all on the inside. What is left to prove? I’m sure you have heard the philosophical question if a tree falls over in the woods and there;s no living creature there to hear it does it make a sound? n Well extrapolate that further and ask, if there is no life in the Universe, does the Universe exist? The answer to that question reveals the connection between life and the Universe; that they are one and the same.

Me: “matter is made of energy = universe is consciousness”

That does not follow.

Furthermore, you cannot verify the truth of physical evidence. Thus physical evidence cannot be a rational base for philosophy. Only pure logic can.

Your last post is cluttered with blatant logical fallacies.

Dean Rose: Lol no it isn’t it makes perfect sense. Matter=energy=consciousness. Simple. Your use of articulation may serve you well on the scrabble board but it doesn’t help you solve or debunk this theory. The Universe is a holographic projection of consciousness = fact. And the physical evidence which you state cannot be verified has already been proven by mainstream quantum science.

Me: You don’t have your head around what is knowable and unknowable.

The only things which are knowable with any certain are self-evidences(such as “I think therefore I am”) and axioms which are concepts which must be true because in any attempt to dismiss it you would actually have to apply it(Such as “a thing is itself). Everything else is only our best guess and requires faith to accept as certain.

Dean Rose: The only thing that is knowable is what we know as individuals, we do not know what someone else knows 🙂

Me: Correct. But also there are only certain things an individual can know. I stated these. They are self-evidences and axioms.

Dean Rose: You miss out the wisdom of experience

Me: There is no way to know that anything we experience apart from ourselves is real. It is entirely irrational to base a philosophy off of physical evidence.

Dean Rose: It is irrational to suggest that experience does not constitute reality. Indeed the only thing that is real is what we experience. What a 33rd degree freemason experiences is very different from an Ayahuasquero Shaman experiences, but they are both real. Everything is real and nothing is real. Paradoxes are real too. So is bitter sweet irony 😛

Me: According to the rational ends of this logic which you have attempted to present there is no such thing as hallucinations.

And by the way, it is possible for there to be subjective paradoxes but not objective ones. Don’t know what that has to do with the discussion though. “everything is real and nothing is real” is completely irrational and in contradiction to axiomatic principles.

Be careful about your next move.

Dean Rose: Haha I love verbal chess, I find it intellectually stimulating. It can be difficult to satisfactorily express non-linear concepts in a linear form. Similarly the reductionist scientific mindset fails to adequately explain non-materialism. No I don’t think there is such a thing as an hallucination, just altered states of perception. Similarly if there is only one consciousness permeating all things then there is not true objectivity, just the illusion of separation. And the everything and nothing is real statement was the paradox I was referring to, so the logic of my statement remains intact. My point is, all things in reality exist within self-containing spheres of awareness, and the further out of the small sphere in the centre you move, the more aware you become of the interconnectedness of all things. Thank you for engaging in this refreshing repartee 🙂

Me: I am enjoying this too.

To say that the universe is only consciousness requires faith, due to the fact that it cannot intrinsically be know to be true.

How do you justify this?

Dean Rose: Because the Universe is an Ocean of energy, vibrating at different resonances and overlapping itself. The frequency at which this energy vibrates results in a corresponding field of manifestation. All physical matter is made of (at it’s most fundamental level) this conscious energy within the same area of the spectrum as our 5 senses. All weneed to access higher dimensions or parallel planes of reality is to shift, or elevate, the frequency of our perception. That’s how a Shaman can access the spirit world. For example, the astral and dream planes are real places in this Universe, not separate from us in Space or in Time, but overlapping us right now, just out of our field of perception. A shift in that perception reveals the invisible to us, and at the highest level of all, at the root, or the source, all things are connected as One. One Universal Consciousness. Us 🙂

Me: Are you telling me you have personally experienced a higher level of consciousness which actually makes it self-evident to you that the universe is consciousness?

1. If you say yes you could be right but I personally have not experienced it and thus have no reason to believe you.

2. If you say yes you may be delusional and have no justification in your belief . I still have no reason to believe you.

3. If you say no, only that others have experienced it, than you yourself actually have no justification in your belief. I still have no reason o believe you.

You have narrowed yourself down to three options in which I have no justification in believing you. Two of which there isn’t even a justification for yourself.

Dean Rose: Yes 🙂 I always say if you don’t have the wisdom of experience all you have is second hand belief. I don’t expect you to believe me on faith, you’ll just have to see for yourself what you truly are. Inlakesh

Me: Fair enough. Thanks for the discussion.

Dean Rose: The pleasure was half mine 🙂

Two Things I Want to be Quoted On.

Posted in Anarchy, Defiance, Free-thought, Philosophy, Politics, Quotes on May 11, 2010 by FЯEEDO

Quote me on these:

> “Some of the freest men and women to ever live have been in shackles and behind bars. For I tell you this; no one shall so much as taste freedom until they know freedom of mind.”

> “Go ahead, keep clamoring for your government to give you more and more rights. But there is one natural right that government will never give you. It is highest of all rights and also the hardest to obtain. The right to resist, for defiance, for revolution. For without the right to resist, you have no rights at all.”

A Heaven for Atheists???

Posted in Atheism, AWESOME, Free-thought, futurism, Philosophy, Religion, strange on April 21, 2010 by FЯEEDO

For a long time us nonreligious folk have been criticizing the ideas of heaven among the many religions and ascertaining that once we die our consciousnesses disappear and never return.

And certainly there is nothing to fear of this kind of end. No more suffering, you won’t even care at all. Yet it still gives you incentive to live.

But what if I told you there could actually be heaven waiting for us, without a need for a God, without religion, or spirituality? Do I have your attention?

Besides being a philosopher, political theorist and a party-animal, I also spend a great deal of time thinking about the future, more specifically the far future; I am a futurist.

Keep in mind this is all theoretical. It’s an idea of mine, not a belief. In-fact I don’t actually have any beliefs, only ideas.

There may come a day(and we are speaking farther in the future than you can imagine) in which we develop the technology to sustain our universe from being destroyed by whatever natural processes would threaten it. This would essentially give us unlimited time. If this is achieved I think it would be theoretically possible to develop technology capable of taking a “snapshot” of the universe. With this snap shot we would be able to see every single smallest piece that makes up the universe. If this is achieved we would then be able to use the data collected to hypothetically turn back the clocks and see every single happening in the history of the universe. This means seeing every creature to ever come into existence. At this point whatever grand life form it is that has this technology would then be able to decide whether to bring any of us back to life by reconstructing us from the data provided by the snapshot. With infinite time on their hands it would be expected that they would finally do this. We would all see each other again and live in the amazing new world we would encounter.

Far fetched?