Search for truth

[blazeofglory]

I read philosophical writings with desire of knowing my roots. I am not talking about cultural roots. This is all non sense. I am not seeking for my identity with some thing. This is the subject of the migrants who feel alienated in a new world as this is a subject of interest for them.

I read philosphy out of a desire of seeing the truth of my origin, not in the way Charles Darwin wrote the origin of species. I am not inttersted in that either. What engages me at all times is why are all of us here. This questions sound so simple and we can arrive many answers to them. But in the real sense our being here must have some reason. Maybe theology is right or may not be.

I read religious texts, even at times, astronomical findings, books of philosophies setting myself in quest of the truth of my existence in this world . I know the quest is endless and there are fewer possibilities we can arrive at the solution.

Yet the search is engaging and appeals to me. Maybe I may arrive or may not. That is little significant. Navigating truth is tellingly venturesome thing.

This I started when I was a little boy in one of the remote ravines in Nepal.

[NikolaiI]

What I have found is that the world is divided into extremes, between nothing and infinite, and we are somewhere in between. This was something Pascal talked about, and I think is true, except I differ in that I don't think we ever become infinite. Pascal says we come from the infinite and return to the infinite, I think we come from nothing and return to nothing. There is every evidence of the infinite, but also every evidence of it not applying to us. Birth, age, death, the cycles of life; I never see any reason to think we live forever.

As for religion it was created by people and to me has value personally, and philosophically, but I find deities to be a joke. They were invented during a time when information was not so widely available, and ideas were spread more slowly. I do not scoff at the beliefs of the ancients, because I have no idea what I would have been like or thought of at that time, but I don't think a lot of their ideas stand up to the test of time. I don't really think mine will either.

I was recently reading a book by Suzuki where he says we make tools of language, but then are forced to submit to these tools, and become tools ourselves. We also becomes tools and serve machines, he says. The book was about Shin Buddhism, and he talks about Amida, the Other Shore, and Pure Land. I think Eastern Thought covers a lot of Traditions, and I am just getting into some of them. I think they can be very beneficial to well-being and whatnot.

I think if you are interested in truth then you will need to learn objective thought. This means being able to think clearly, without interpretation as much as possible. Always throw out convictions, ideas, when you don't need them anymore. As one teacher said, 'my teachings are like a raft to get you across a flood. When you have reached land, you don't need the teachings anymore.'

One question is, "why do we ask why we are here?" "Why ask why?" Camus said we ask why, we wake up one morning when we are 40, after weeks and years of monotonous living, we ask why are we living this machine life? So I think it has a lot to do with what kind of life you are living. Camus said after the resulting turbulations, the result is either recovery or suicide, depending on such and such. So if we ask why, we are not happy, not satisfied, not fulfilled. But I don't think this is anything near necessary, the only way people will be, the only way people are. Sometimes people are happy. Asking why is a sign something is wrong- if a friend says "What is the use of life, what is the meaning, why are we living?" You would probably think that something is wrong. Since most of philosophic inquiry comes down to this why, it makes me wonder.

As for the asking, we are taught to ask. We ask to learn, to discover: there is knowledge we have acquired, and we are interested in it. First we want to learn as much as we can, perfect ourselves, and eventually contribute, share, and create.

About truth I have generally found two things: objective thought is something people strive for, and as for truth, the truth is we are captives by our possessions, including language and all of our tools; we serve them. The quest is for liberation, of ourselves from being tools to back to just being ourselves. The method: a return to silence, to worldlessness, to peace, not away from the world, not an escape, but seemingly one; liberation and peace.

As for the nothing and infinite; either one is the same to me. I cannot wrap my mind around not existing any more than I can being God, so each has endless beginnings, if you will. Each is equally wonderful, because unfathomable.

[Redzeppelin]

The search for Truth is actually the search for God. Even if one claims to not believe in the existence of God, if one searches for Truth, the actual object of the search is God Himself.

[NikolaiI]

I go to church, and when I'm there I believe in God, but due my nature and per argument's own sake, I have to oppose any statement like that. You believe what you were taught- I don't subscribe to the idea that "millions of believers can't be wrong." Anyone can be wrong, even everyone.

Consider your statement and the following: even if a person professes faith in a deity, deep down they don't think it's true.

[Redzeppelin]

I go to church, and when I'm there I believe in God, but due my nature and per argument's own sake, I have to oppose any statement like that. You believe what you were taught- I don't subscribe to the idea that "millions of believers can't be wrong." Anyone can be wrong, even everyone.

Your opposition is welcomed - but I can say what I say because Christians who acknowledge God as the supreme reality must therefore follow that logic out to the conclusion that the search for Truth (capital T) is the search for God. C.S. Lewis presented this idea in Reflections on the Psalms (well worth reading).


Consider your statement and the following: even if a person professes faith in a deity, deep down they don't think it's true.

How can you make such a sweeping generalization?

[NikolaiI]

Well it was just the way you said claims, instead of saying even if someone doesn't. I guess you're right, mine was a generalization about what they believe, yours was a statement about God, so it wasn't the same, but it was still kind of a weird connotation - everyone who claims not to believe in God.. sort of setting it in your favour.. I just wanted to point that out. And I understand Lewis' position, and I guess that it again comes down to the arguments for or against existence of God, and we've probably covered that well enough by now; but still, that's all it is. For instance, if I don't believe in God, then your statement doesn't make a lot of sense to me, since I think God is a false idea, as opposed to a true idea, so therefore God isn't the goal of all searches for truth. It's all perspective, as always.

[weepingforloman]

Assuming, as we must, that God is not disproved already, we may use statements about Him as a road map of sorts. They say He is the source of all that is: well, that is truth, is it not? Therefore, the search for truth may rightly be termed the search for God, much as the search for a cheeseburger may be termed the search for food.

[NikolaiI]

They say He is the source of all that is: well, that is truth, is it not?

Well, that is the debate.


Assuming, as we must, that God is not disproved already, we may use statements about Him as a road map of sorts. They say He is the source of all that is: well, that is truth, is it not? Therefore, the search for truth may rightly be termed the search for God, much as the search for a cheeseburger may be termed the search for food.

But who is this God? Where did He come from, and why are we talking about Him?
Nietzsche said, since we must obey the laws of grammar, we cannot do away with God entirely. As far as I understand it, that has to do with the way that language points to God. But now why would a philosophic inquiry result in the idea that we believe what was written in a book was divinely inspired? Why would it decide we should believe people, and take their words for it? My own philosophic inquiry points to the idea that language is full of it; it makes tools of us and has historically been developed as culture-serving and preserving; a lot of times it does not have a lot to do with pristine reality.

I disagree that the search for truth is the search for God. Truth has not made up its mind about God. We're searching for the truth about God (hypothetically), we're trying to decide about this God. Above or beside truth, naught is there to go. In fact, why would you not believe there was not a Super-God above God? We're always talking about -outside of human imagination, but thanks to math, we can always go...higher, or farther outside.

I don't know, I'm just replying because this stuff came to mind, but I wish this thread wasn't hi-jacked into another God thread. Thanks to Red, who mentioned it for the first time. :) It was more interesting what blaze said, and I responded to, but it seems as per the usual my points won't be noticed, since now we are talking about God.