Essence and existence part 2.

It has been a fundamental and traditional metaphysical view that essence precedes existence which means we have a higher order and predetermined purpose and we're here to fulfil that purpose. The concept of essence is also seen in Plato's work, in which he claims that truth is eternal, unchangeable and absolute and knowing that truth is the central goal of human philosophy. According to Plato we've an eternal existing nature and it's our duty to discover it through philosophical contemplation, and through reasoning. The human beings have a common eternal existing "essentialist" nature defined by reason.

Also Aristotle states that we humans are rational animals. The reason is the true self of every person and in the highest sense reason is a mans self. Aristotle has accounted in his (Metaphysic 1) "Essence corresponds to the ousia's definition; essence is a real and physical aspect of the ousia."
Most of the philosophers like Descartes, Leibniz, Kant and Hegel were of essential tradition.

After saying this consider an example of a seed - it has the whole tree existing in it, which means that it encloses the essence. The growth of the tree is already present and it's the essence only that's unfolding. That is the seed unfolds the essence and becomes existential. Hence it can be said that essence is the cause of existence. At the present age even scientific proof can be obtained by Kirlian photography which is developed in soviet Russia and photographs the aura and essence of the material object as shown in the image. Hence before the actual existence, the energy and essence can be confirmed to be present near the object.

In regard to Jean Paul Sarte claims, i believe that he has made statements on observation of a mature and adult human society, where he fails to account for innate conditions, infant tantrums, etc which claims for possessed special human nature. Also consider the example of a schizophrenic where the condition is in his/her nature and they can't help it. In regard to God his existence is not afflicted with laying norms of humans nature.
And in regard to existence of ashtray it took a conscious decision to make one on need. If the conscious decision came into being purely by coincidence why can't the whole existence turn up by coincidence? And if there is no conscious decision over our existence then we're not needed!

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.9

Essence and existence.

What is existence - Existence is a fact of being present - "that it is"
What is essence - Essence is the description of existence - "what it is."

There has been a perennial debate over centuries over mans existence and whether it comes with a predetermined essence or not. Inorder to present both the existential and metaphysical points I'll cover it in 2 parts. Part 1 covering the existential and the latter metaphysical.
Part 1
The basic proposition of existentialism "Existence precedes essence" over traditional philosophical and metaphysical view that essence is fundamental/immutable/eternal than it's existence. To existentialists, the human being— through his consciousness creates his own values and determines a meaning for his life because, in the beginning, the human being does not possess any inherent identity or value. By posing the acts that constitute him, he makes his existence more significant
It is well claimed by Jean Paul Sarte in "Existentialism is humanism" that existence precedes essence, which gets a support from his closest Simone de beauvoir who states that "one is not born women, but becomes one."

Sarte and many existentialist's rules out and disbeliefs that any cosmic order determines human nature. However the concept can be questioned over the example of any object let's take an ashtray. It was created to specify certain purpose and it has a predetermined nature and properties for which it was created. Which can be simply stated as it's essence precedes it's existence. But Sarte claimed for such purpose that it's concept applies to humanity but not universally. The same cannot be stated for human beings since to accept an essence is to confine ourselves over a common meaning and a purpose. Over essence we become a mere object who are only to fulfil a higher ordained purpose which isn't conveyed to us.

Despite of this some atheists assume that we're possessed by special human nature which fulfils our role among fellow humans. Against which Sarte argues that no human nature is common to everyone, we define our nature which abides and commensales with the society. However this radical freedom, should be accompanied by radical responsibility.

The precedence of existence, which devoid the essence for our creation put a question mark over the presence of God and it's essence of creation of humanity, which is discussed in the next part.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.9

Philosophers on death.

Death has always been a mystery and an exciting topic for philosophers. Here are the excerpts of some of the philosophers and their take on death.

Plato
[Death], “Is this something that the separation of soul from the body? It died when the body is separate from the soul remains alone, apart, with himself, and when the soul, separated from the body, left alone, apart, with itself “…

Marcus Aurelius.
He who has seen present things has seen all, both everything which has taken place from all eternity and everything which will be for time without end; for all things are of one kin and of one form.

Socrates
Death may be the greatest of all
human blessings. To fear death, my friends, is only to think ourselves wise, without being wise: for it is to think that we know what we do not know. For anything that men can tell, death may be the greatest good that can happen to them: but they fear it as if they knew quite well that it was the greatest of evils. And what is this but that shameful ignorance of thinking that we know what we do not know?

Hegel
“Death, if we want to name and this unreality, is the most dangerous thing. This is not the life that recoils in horror at the death and preserves pure destruction, but life is death, and remains even in death, which is the life of the mind. ”

Arthur Schopenhaur
“Death is the moment of liberation from a narrow and uniform individuality, which, far from the inner substance of our being, is rather as a kind of aberration. ”After your death you will be what you
were before your birth.

Heidegger
“This means that one end by the
death does not mean, for human
reality, being-in-my-purpose be-
finished, it means the end for a being who is the being that exists. Death is a way of being human reality that assumes, as it is: When a human comes to life, it is already old enough to die. ”

Sartre
The darkness of death is like the
evening twilight; it makes all objects appear more lovely to the dying. [Death] “Not only the project that destroyed all projects and that destroyed itself. It is the triumph of the perspective of others on the point of view I am myself. ”

To conclude, here we've presented random views on the next topic I'll like to merge and give an overview of overall makeup on the topic. And I'll also like to discuss some moot points on death and after death.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.8

Fast fading faith.

In the jist of todays world the thing that is seemed to fade faster than anything is faith. Yes we all have lost our faith in everything our living, humanity, the world and the most important God. What can be the cause of such an important phenomenon that goes unseen in our daily lives is important for us to understand. The primary major cause is the inadvertent and ignorant lifestyle. We seemed to be very much interested in the world around us than what's happening within us.
The absurdity of life starts from the point of life when men becomes unknown of his internal life.

The lack of knowledge and apart from this most importantly the correct pious knowledge is aloof in our lives. We've forgotten the basic principles and basic school of philosophy in our lives and are just going abruptly where everyone's heading to. So the major thing here is to just give a halt to your life and concentrate on the footsteps where you're leading. We may foresee ourselves in this materialistic world but what about the world without the Maya. And yes it does exist as you were born without those vices that only come such a world.

The approach that everyone adopts to understand oneself is again inappropriate. What i believe is that no man or principle in the world can teach you to discover yourself the quest should began from within. The urge should come from your soul to understand one better. You should strife to maintain an inertia with the universe. The thing that aids in such a quest is the pious teachings of a Guru. Though it's an individual choice but the Guru should not be a mortal being but the basic affirm believes that can be applied to everyone and in every aspect. So the only strong contender can be a religious or any relevant script that you may perceive. The mystical teachings can be revealed by anyone any sentient being but what matters is how that teaching is conceived and perceived by you. The better understanding can only come when it's taught by your soul rather than any practical teaching enforced on it. A book especially the correct one can do a major difference in your lives. I have conceived the same ideas but from my religions holy book- Yes i am always astonished and obliged that i am having a scripture as my Guru and it has helped me to develop and follow the principles that I've learned from the same. And to correct you, you have the freedom of choice so you're not bounded to a single belief. Any scripture can lead your life and explain to you the correct meaning of your living though it's the only one you that are creating with it.

Anyone who says that they have only one life to live, i assume they've not read a book. And in the end let me leave you with this quote.
A book is the only place in which you
can examine a fragile thought without breaking it, or explore an explosive idea without fear it will go off in your face. It is one of the few havens remaining where a man's mind can get both provocation and privacy. - Edward P. Morgan.
And let me also assert you that the major principles can only be conceived by a book written by a pious soul in ecstasy...

So start the discovery and unleash the locked doors of your spirit and taste the gleam of the pious inner world...

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.8

Ecological worries in vegetarianism.

So the next question that arises against vegetarianism is that of ecological imbalance- Non Vegans claim that if all the population turns vegetarian then it'll lead to destruction of environment and extinction of reared animal species. Mine only answer to them is that have you ever heard of Environmental vegetarianism. It is the practise of vegetarianism based on the indications that animal production leads to intensive agriculture which is unsustainable.

Let me explain you how is animal cultivation is leading to a serious environmental imbalance. The major industries associated with meat production are of feed crops producing corn and soy which are more damaging to ecosystem than organic farming, permaculture, arable, pastoral or rain fed agriculture.

In 2006 by the initiative of U.N. a survey done for contributors of environment degradation; livestock industries were found to have a major impact. Since these industries leads to - deforestation, air and water pollution, land degradation, loss of topsoil, climate change resources overuse,loss of biodiversity, etc....

In 2006 FAO estimated that meat industries release 18% greenhouse gases; which was revised in 2009 to be minimum 51%.
The ratio of the resources invested inorder to produce livestock products is more shocking as its - 4:1 for milk and egg and 54:1 for protein production. Hence it clearly proves that these methods are less efficient than direct harvesting.

The famous words of Dennis Avery - Director of Centre of Global food production are "The world must create 5 billion Vegans in next several decades or Triple it's total farm output without using more land" it's not an exaggeration but implying our present conditions.

The WHO states that every year due to malnutrition 10.4 million children's die every year. The Cornell scientists advised U.S. could feed 800 million people on the grain that livestock eats. Inorder to produce 1 pound of beef 2,400 gallons of water and 7 pounds of Grain is required.
Hence from the above content its quite clear that even modest reduction in meat consumption could substantially reduce burden on our Natural resources and enable us to live sustainably.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.8

Wanna turn veggie think about it.

While religious and ethical beliefs, as well as economic factors have a lot to do with the profusion of vegetarians in countries like India and Thailand,more and more people, particularly in developed countries, have given up and continue to give up meat and other animal products for health reasons. This has to do with scientific reports around the world showing that a vegetarian diet can considerably reduce the high cholesterol associated with heart disease.Likewise, research done over the past twenty years strongly suggests that there is a link between eating meat and cancer of the colon, rectum,prostate, breast and uterus, which is very rare amongst cultures who eat little or no meat.One reason given by biologists and nutritionists for such serious imbalances is that the human intestinal tract is not suited for digesting meat. Animals that eat flesh have short intestines to pass rapidly the decaying and toxin-producing meat out of their body. Plant-eaters have intestines at least six times the length of their body, because plant foods decay more slowly than meat.The human body has the long intestinal tract of a herbivore, so the toxins produced during digestion(and by any undigested meat) can overload the system, especially the kidneys, and lead to gout, arthritis,rheumatism, and other diseases,including cancer. Plus, the meat industry adds nitrites and other preservatives to keep the decaying meat a bright red color, and even before being slaughtered livestock are fed enormous amounts of chemicals such as tranquilizers, hormones, antibiotics, and many others(Gary and Steven Null mention 2,700 drugs given to livestock in their book Poisons in Your Body). Although these drugs will still be present in the meat when you eat it, the law does not require that they be listed on the package.We humans need protein. Yes, it is a fact that protein constitutes the building blocks of our tissues. But animal flesh is not the only source of protein available to us. Dairy products, grains, beans, and nuts are all concentrated sources of protein.Cheese, peanuts, and lentils, for instance, contain more protein per ounce than hamburger, pork, or steak. Animal protein requires much energy to digest and transforms into energy quickly, making it readily available for< you although it also gets quickly consumed. Vegetable protein does not use as much energy to digest and transforms into longer lasting energy.In excess, animal protein will more likely reduce your body's overall energy because of the energy it takes to digest. Studies show that
vegetarians are able to perform any physical activity 2 to 3 times longer than non-vegetarians, and that they recover from fatigue 2 to 3 times faster as well. Fish may be considered somewhat “cleaner” than read meat or poultry, but nowadays you need to be careful, as many types of fish have unhealthy amounts of mercury, as well as other contaminants like PCBs, chlordane, dioxins, and DDT. The American Dietetic Association notes that most of mankind for most of human history has lived on vegetarian or quasi-vegetarian diets. And the modern 20th-century consumer society significantly changed people's diet in industrialized countries. Furthermore, the slaughter of animals and meat consumption has become excessive, leading to serious imbalances and disease. Yet, this seems to be slowly changing, as more and more people are becoming concerned about their health and more conscientious about what they put into their bodies. We are finally making the connection between diet and health that Ayurveda has stated for thousands of years, and taking more responsibility for our own well being instead of just blindly following the mainstream behavior. Spiritual Reasons to Become a Vegetarian In most Eastern cultures, vegetarianism is also imbued with the ethical principles of spiritual traditions like Hinduism and Buddhism, which follow ahimsa (non-violence) and metta (universal love). Love and non- violence refer not just to humans, but to all living beings, because we cannot find peace within ourselves if we are not willing to respect nature and be at peace with the world around us. The slaughter of animals is violence and there is no such thing as “humane animal slaughter.” It is written in the Vedas that, “Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures.” Indian spiritual teachers have promoted vegetarianism as an integral part of the spiritual path for thousands of years, not only because not killing animals is part of ahimsa, or non-violence, as a general precept, but also because participating in the wholesale slaughter of animals, or killing animals as a form of entertainment or sport creates karma.Since the aim of a yogic spiritual path is Liberation, partaking in theslaughter of animals means promoting our own suffering (by supporting the suffering of others) and binding us to the world. Yet now that yoga has become so popular in the West, we see yoga and meditation retreats where meat is served, which goes completely against the principles of true yoga, as it condones a worldly and desire-based mind frame, as opposed to a liberating path of inner peace and self-awareness.

The absurdity of plant pain.

Well i really turn corybantic when people question a Vegan/Veggie being a hypocrite. Well yes I've been questioned a lot regarding plants feeling pain. So here I'll try to explain on my.part with some biochemistry and moral ethics in mind.

First I want to comment on the absurdity of we humans that first started with Rene Descartes who argued animals lacking consciousness to the worst some people still believe in that. So I'll first like to comment on that.

For anyone to feel pain the anatomical process is called nociception or perception of pain - Which cause due to the presence of nociceptors/sensory receptors. These responds to the potentially damaging stimuli by a sending nerve signal to.a spinal cord.in peripheral nervous system.
These have been showed to be present on cutaneous i.e. External and internal system of the body. And these receptors have been.documented in non mammalian animals like - fish; invertebates - leeches, and even nematode; sea slugs; fruit flies etc. So the animal not feeling consciousness is ruled out.

Now let me come to plants no one has ever came to show the presence of nociceptors in plants. And moreover plants don't have any limbic system to understand any form of senses. Also they don't show.any episodic memory storage capacity so they do not remember any harm caused to them as it would be a evolutionary waste. In practical terms this isn’t so much a logical point as it is an ad hominem but even were it not a fallacy it’s still based on a rather shaky assumption; namely that plants feel pain. Let me say this right up front. There is no empirical evidence of plants experiencing a sensation even remotely close to what we call pain. Pain has a very specific definition that is often lost in the colloquial use of the word. Simply put, pain is a negative sensation that occurs when an organism has suffered some sort of physical injury. Depending on the nature of the pain the response could be either unconscious, as when you pull your hand off a hot plate without thinking about it, or conscious, as when you stick your hand under freezing ice water for as long as you can on a dare.

Sometimes cited as support is the fact that plants are certainly capable of responding to outside stimuli. Sunflowers are able to move their flowers and track the sun across the sky while tress have been shown to shift nitrogen (important in photosynthesis) to leaves in heavier sunlight. However from an anatomical and physiological point of view the idea that plants feel pain finds little support. Plants lack pain receptors that would allow them to experience negative stimulation in the first place as well as lacking both a brain and a nervous system that would be required to analyze and respond to such sensory information. There does seem to be evidence that plants release hormones after being damaged much in the same way animals will but plant hormones are quite different from those found in animals. Furthermore this would not be evidence of a pain response in plants but rather an automatic reaction to stimuli. More damning for the position though is the total lack a reason for plants to have evolved a pain response. Pain is a useful adaptation for animals because it helps them avoid dangerous situations. A perfect way to illustrate this is to look at humans born without the ability to feel it. The condition is called congenital analgesia of congenital insensitivity to pain. A rare genetic condition the prime symptom of which is the total lack of any ability to experience a pain response. As you may have been able to guess suffers often do not live long and those that do must be carefully watched. Broken bones may go untreated or infections unremarked upon if only because they have no reason to be concerned about them. Without pain there is no reason to pull your hand out of the fire. Pain helps animals survive but the same cannot be said for plants. With no ability to avoid danger if it arises, such as retracting a branch being munched on by an herbivore or uprooting to a new spot during a fire, the development of a pain response system would be an evolutionary waste. It would add nothing the fitness of the organism (the ability to reproduce) and the resources that would be used to grow it could instead be put into growth and reproduction. Plants certainly can respond to threats, many species of algae increase their production of defensive chemicals after suffering damage from herbivory, but such things only indicate a response to outside stimuli not pain. Some objections can be raised to the position I’ve offered. One is that any negative experience qualifies as pain. Since plants are able to respond to stimuli, and therefore must experience it in some way, and some stimuli are certainly negative plants then would be said to experience pain. This however is conflating two separate issues; the question of panpsychism and the question of suffering. As shown above it is quite possible for a human to possess the ability to experience while simultaneously lacking the ability to feel pain. A similar situation is found in those lacking photoreceptors in the eyes (blind) or who have suffered damage to chemoreceptors in the nose (lack of smell). One could hardly say that a blind person is able to experience sight or a deaf person able to experience sound even though they are certainly able to experience other stimuli for which they have the proper tools. In a similar vein a computer is clearly able to respond to stimuli such as the introduction of a virus into its software but very few would say that such an event causes the computer any sort pain. As it currently stands it makes little sense to extend our moral sphere to encompass plants but that does not mean we may ignore the role they have to play. As primary producers all life on earth ultimately derives from the ability of plants to provide energy for the rest of us. The continued happiness and prosperity of both us and the rest of the animal kingdom requires the continued health of.the ecosystems we share.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.8