Posts 1,2,3,4,5,6,7

Post 1

What would make me happy? I’ll answer this question and what make me happy now, and what use to make me happy because all of these questions apply. We all are different, so I have my different definitions of happiness. I relate it to words like contentment and self-satisfaction. I’m driven for my own self and I build off others so that we can all progress together. Men and women can play various roles on this planet, and they do. Males do certain jobs or functions and as do the women. So for myself, as a male, I’m pushed to survive, recreate and still enjoy living. We live in such a high pace world, where ten year olds have cell phones and game systems are seven hundred dollars. So it’s hard to maintain a humble living when there are flashy advertisements everywhere. It’s on you then to strive for greatness then right? What can an individual do to stay righteous, is it be a hippie and fight for peace all year long, or is it be a rich man mansion type and donate to the cause worthy. The political spectrum is huge, and so it the human race. It’s where I stand, is what should be important, because in the long run and final breaths, it’s going to be the memories and things I left over that’ll live forever.

So what I’m looking for in happiness isn’t only directed to me but others around me. It’s a goal of mine to reach the community and other communities because being close knit is what it’s all about. Charisma and learning the ropes are small social tests that need to be exercised. Like Aristotle, he knew a lot of people and a lot of people knew him. He did this by being a lover of wisdom, a philosopher. He sought the greater good, which the majorities do not do. Vulgar lifestyle isn’t what I’m looking for. It’s something wholesome and true. Wisdom doesn’t come around every day and it’s on us to capture it. It’s a thing for me to be on top of things and always update myself. Keep myself busy with new things and always rekindling old ones. Taking care of family should always be important, because blood is thicker than water. Friends might not last forever, but there are probably some rarities out there. For me, good friends who keep me lifted and family with support can take you a long ways. I include having good friends and family be a factor in happiness. Not a lot of people realize this though, believe that. There are some sons and grandsons who steal from their parents, and grandparents for drug money or other various illegal reasons. Imagine that, and compared to most of our lives, we don’t sit close. This applies to our happiness as opposed to those type of criminal ones. Don’t get me completely wrong though, I know there are criminals out there doing good and being good. But for the most part, these guys are bad to the bone, lawfully modern day pirates. Sensibility, sincerity, good humor, confident persona, people person, the list goes on of what I feel is happiness. Material things don’t add up to happiness but they do influence it so don’t get me wrong. They could be mixed signals because example is friends and family giving you gifts which are materialistic things they immediate transform into cherish able items. So you draw the line.

Aristotle was a philosopher of an age long long ago, today it’s his writings and ideas that live for him. This just goes to show that the only thing that’s constant is change. It’s easy to predict that rare storms will happen throughout someone’s lifetime. Expect the unexpected is the saying. So back then, some things were probably the same, like eating fruit and other human daily activities, while other things changed completely like indoor plumbing and clean toilets, for the most part. During Aristotle’s time he studied at Plato’s lectures. It was the last leg of his education, yet it was 20 years under Plato. He had some trouble and was forced to leave Athens to avoid persecution. We and many other individuals study him today. I read a websites pertaining to the philosopher and this is what I learned.

All the work under Aristotle is divided into three sections dialogues of other speakers etc, collection of facts such as scientific data and numbers and last systematic works like theories. He had categories for logic and they are first substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, situation, condition, action, passion, and lastly passion. It seemed like a series of steps or questions that were used to find the reasoning for a being or object. Ancients praised Aristotle for having a golden flow of language. What a great accomplishment, I wish I had that. Ethics, according to Aristotle was the chief end, and or the highest good. Happiness for Aristotle was based on human nature and personal experience, and not abstract thinking and self-existing good like Plato. Aristotle’s path seemed more down to earth for me. There are parts of the soul that contain intellectual virtues, moral virtues that lie in the middle, and nutritional virtues which is the down to the needy gritty stuff. The means of living should be the same for all, unfortunately there are many greedy and wanting people. I would for my own sake like to hold my own and involve others in improving themselves. An efficient, sincere lifestyle is what I’m going for and it’s similar to Aristotle’s rational calculative views.

In one of the books, it reveals most men are the vulgar type and identify happiness with enjoyment .I’m not sure this means permanent or temporary enjoyment. An intellectual route is what Aristotle and other philosophers chose. There are 3 types of life, enjoyment, political, and contemplative. These can be in a collaboration to using honor and refinement in one’s life. A life is money making is a compulsive life. You make the money then you spend it, with wisdom you gain the wisdom and you keep it, or you can even share it with the future generations. For me and many others, money isn’t the key to success or happiness. Aristotle felt the same. Good has many senses and is different to the spectrum. The question is though; does all the good go to the same place? Or does it all branch out? For example for the life of a doctor or carpenter, their final product is their work and how patients and projects turned out. This would be the greater good for them, because it’s their function and activity for that. Yet, why would they benefit for helping others? Well the answer is, it’s on them. You could either care or not care, it’s upon the individual on what’s more important. The end result of someones works will be seen and remembered. Anonymous do gooders either get self-fufillment or peer praising. Being self-sufficient means not only do you handle yourself but also other being we’re born into citizenship. Citizenship meaning we’re part of a land, and within that land are people. Together we stand and united we fall is how it goes. A bon citizen you are to take care of parents, children, wife, friends and fellow citizens. It might be a duty or born right, but this is what Aristotle said.


POST 2

Epicurus was a major philosopher during the Hellenistic period. Many philosophers came from this period. Epicurus taught that the world consists only of atoms, bits of matter and other things inhabiting the Earth. He explained the natural phenomena in atomic terms. By doing this, he removed the possibility of spiritual beings and a higher existence. He rejected Platonic views such as forms of an immaterial soul. Epicurus believed that what was here, is what is here and nothing more. Underneath it all, that is was just blood and guts just as you imagined, and no spirits involved here. It was a big thing to Epicurus that you were not to fear gods or even fear death. This rules an after life. So, his world, it’s during your lifetime you shine and not a day later. He also said that we could gain knowledge without relying on senses. He thought that the point of ones actions was to attain pleasure, and by pleasure he means tranquility, mostly to one’s self. An easy was of obtaining this tranquil life, it’s best to limit your desires and forget about fear or gods and death. This will consequently hold you down and fear will take over. His gospel of freedom from gods or death became well known amongst a certain group of individuals. And who is to blame them, it very well seems like a perfect method to face the fears that you do have, and conquer them by yourself. His ethics is a form of egotistic hedonism as in the only intrinsically valuable thing is ones own pleasure. Yet, he was still sophisticated. He would recommend a virtuous and moderately ascetic life. Some hedonists have the stereotype of being the ones to “eat, drink, and be merry.” This ethical person that Epicurus is creating is a playful one. Aristotle’s ethical man helped the citizens. And Epictetus wanted people to live according to nature. These three philosophers had many common ground areas and also off sets amongst each other. But these men were all about their own sake and to find the highest goods for yourself. Don’t get this confused with being selfish though, they are different terms. These wisdom filled individuals found it necessary to use ones brain and expand it to then improve the surrounding world. Epicurus disagrees with identifying happiness with pleasure, but he does believe ultimately in the end it’s about gaining pleasure for oneself. He also says that not all pleasure are choice worthy or is all pain to be avoided. The learning process takes part in here, it’s important for some people to go through certain obstacles to grow as people. And I see this here of how he speaks that not all pain is bad pain. It’s simple actually, when you want calculate what’s positive for yourself, you think about how will it be in the future and how this certain event or action will either bring me up or bring me down. The long term interest of an individual should be watched closely and often thought of. Finding pleasure for oneself, is like what the baby infant does. It looks for and searches for closeness, food these are pleasures and it then shuns away and avoids pain or anything uncomfortable. A type of pleasure is static pleasure. It’s when a being is satisfied and these are the best type of pleasures according to Epicurus. I relate this to eating, once you ate your fill, you should be satisfied. The greatest destroyer of happiness Epicurus says is the anxiety of the future and specifically fear of gods and fear of death. It wouldn’t be a good daily routine to be scared to leave the house everyday or be afraid of cursing here and there. The liberal freedom of a believer of this philosophy can live out their days with no worries and free conscience.

Epictetus studied under Stocism which was in the early C.E. in Athens. Imagine that, because Athens had so many philosophers come from there. His works were on early Stoics and dealt with three branches, them being logic, physics, and ethics. So Epictetus studies differed from that of Epicurus. And lucky for Epictetus he supposedly had someone writing his lectures verbatim because to this day there is controversy on his writings and who and where they came from. But that’s beside topic of ethics. Epictetus wanted the world to live according to nature and to do it virtuously. His place of study encouraged all students to live philosophically. I assume that this means look for the highest good. Virtues was an expected trait. Like a lot of Hellentistic period views, he added to the list of the aim to live well and secure one self. As for Epictetus though, he wanted it to be more in tune with nature and Epicurus was more into pleasure and longtime interest which are different things. The central theme of Epitetus works and teachings were virtues were important and the activities with them are righteous, and the opposite of that was vice being the evil.


POST 3
Spinoza was among the most important of the Post-Cartesian philosophers. During the 2nd half of the 17th century, he came up with a geometric method that followed side by side with his philosophies. He had a Jewish background, which influenced him to have a tendency to stay with God and nature in his ideas. His works would later on mold peoples thoughts such individuals were Machiavelli and the Stoics. Spinoza is best known for his ethics. He has the ideals of believing that Nature and God have a major role in our lives. He speaks about the life of a free-man. And he relates our sense perception as a means to getting knowledge. The freedom we have as individuals is encouraged by him to use reason for better understanding of the world around us. To take it further, take reason and knowledge to judge an outcome to yet better your lifestyle. He has an idealization of geometry as his model for philosophy. He believes that nature is infinite and that it’s the one responsible for creating the universe. And it’s up to you to come and understand nature’s system. And to, grasp that the free man is a part of it. He also states that in order to find happiness you must be in line with nature’s system. Spinoza was a controversial figure because of his thoughts on how reason is the key to life and also how he used geometric methods to his ethics. His geometric ethics is formed and written in geometry similar to Euclid’s “Elements.” They consisted of definitions, axioms, propositions, and other geometric features. Imagine reading this, it must have been difficult. People would wonder why he used these models for philosophy and it’s said because during this time geometry was on the up rise and in great interest especially within Spinoza’s circle of people. Maybe he got it from Descartes. Descartes was the leading advocate of using geometric methods in philosophy. The effort put into developing these methods was hard work. Spinoza’s ethical theory comes from the pessimistic outlook and characteristics that the human has. He studied this, and came to the conclusion that liberation is important and that it’s next followed by reason. Ethics comes at full force here. What to choose, and why? He used the model from ancients to see how nature can give us our moral duty. It seems that passion is the opposite of reason, he makes it that way. And passion is more on the compulsive side to me, it uses your brain, and other human senses to drop what you are doing and do what you got to do. He tells us that the power of the mind is defined by knowledge, and only knowledge. He says that ideas that come from passion won’t work and you need reason to be that. He also states that satisfactory or only adequate ideas can only take you so far. Liberation lies in the acquisition of knowledge gives the mind power to encounter circumstances because of the views Spinoza is with the tradition of people along the line of the Stoics and even Socrates. Life of a freeman should be free of passion made decisions and made with the guidance of reason. In the end, Spinoza doesn’t think any of this is easy. The knowledge needed isn’t a piece of cake to obtain, but when you escape the clenches of passion, salvation is nothing but a hard works step ahead.

POST 4
Right and wrong, we all have heard these two terms before. Whether you’re young or part of the elderly, there’s no escaping the decisions between right and wrong. Babies or toddlers can decipher what they do is bad or good, unless the babies fairly young. For the most part though, people of all ages must decide on the daily what to do, how to do it, and why they are doing it. As for myself, I’m a 21 year old, young adult who lives with his semi-religious divorced family. A lot of things come into play here. You’ll also have to know that I went to Christian and Catholic school for a good portion of my schooling. Over the years, I have been taught and told many thing, but it’s up to me what to believe. As a young child, I was told not to steal because I have enough or sometimes more then what I needed already. So that action alone, had made me into a person who cannot steal. In return, I believe that stealing is wrong. Maybe the driving force that tells me what’s right or wrong is experience. Mom says one statement, Dad says another, and depending on the outcome of my choice is what I’m going to continue to do. If a negative impression was left, I learned from that and I know now not to do that again. Pain and pleasure have a lot to do with right and wrong. If something hurts, don’t do it, as goes for the opposite of that. If something feels good, do it. Throughout the years, I have been told Christian teachings, as well as Catholic teachings. These teachings come from the Bible, or Pastors and Priests. Teachers have also played a part in molding my morals. Other reasons for deciding between right and wrong are personal experience. I’m all about the personal experience. I’ve grown to know that what happens each day goes with you, the memories, the feelings, the sights, and smells. So, to feed off the energy of people and their reactions, I have built myself to then react with them in a right or wrong way. Hopefully, I’m choosing the right way, in my mind I am. Yet, there are times when things go wrong, and I wonder what has happened to my reasoning. Here it’s best to know that no ones perfect. Some more or less then others. But to take it to another level and contribute to the right in this world, that would be beneficial. Ignorance is major role in doing wrong. People don’t care and dismiss sympathy or generosity or even the common courtesy of a human being. Don’t expect this from everyone, some people often do the right thing, and more often then not people do the wrong thing. My moral system is based on reasoning more then pleasure. So I would say I more like Aristotle, he was into being calculative and intellectual with decisions. Passion drives me but not as much as reasoning. I’d rather do the right thing for the future, then the right thing for the present. Kant’s ethical theory would define as being rational. He called it “Categorial imperative”. Being rational, meant not being out of this world, so that rules out being immortal, this would be irrational. He would agree with my rational thinking because it has to do with reasoning, which is good. A self-governing reason must be in place with a rational outlook. It the pending outcome is definitely unattainable, then this is not what Kant is stating in his theories. He would critique my views as being self-governed because the majority of decisions I make are about my own personal experiences. One of his works was called The Critique of Practical Reason, and it was a newer version of his thoughts after one of his first writings The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. He analyzed how common sense worked with morality, but is common sense a true indicator of what’s right and wrong, I disagree. It just can’t be. First and foremost, common sense is different for everyone, so there’s no way it can apply to universally. This relates to having a good will, this is suppose to based on the value of your moral. How moral are you, and how moral can you be? The route you choose will change as well. Times where you need courage or wittiness will come up. Other times where there’s no need for courageousness because it brings injustice or a time for being witty when its being cruel to someone. There’s more then one side to the spectrum. Taking it too far to the extremes can disrupt someone’s morals. Kant describes having morals to be a good attribute, and if there is anything to pursue it’s that. Having sincerity and sympathy can be a great thing, but too much of it will ruin it. Imagine being too sincere or too sympathetic, it would not work for the individual. Balance is a must. Goodwill is train that takes the passenger to places like self-fulfilled happiness. If you are doing good on your own for your own, happiness is not far away. When it comes to myself, I also try and follow this model. Self-interest doesn’t only apply to me and me alone but others around me because my interest is also greeting others with positive outlooks. It’s important we all build together, because as individuals we can’t do it all, but as a team we can accomplish so much more. Kant compares motivation with duties and other motives people have such as self-interest and happiness. Is it our duty to be happy? Or is it our duty to make others happy? Kant thinks even a dutiful action won’t always be side by side with goodwill. He states that duties are created by laws or rules. If we were to think that these duties are what it’s all about, we are only satisfying the giver of those duties. For example, if your in the army or marines, and it’s your duty to live for the country, is this really the respect and outcome we want for a philosophical life. We are motivated by the communities around us, the cities and civilians that live within. Other neighbors place American flags up high, and would it be your civic duty to so the same? These actions don’t even apply to right and wrong to me. When you do your duty is when your doing the right thing. The duty you have though should come from yourself though, such as self-interest like I do this because of this. I’m a rapper, in return I should rap. Intuition is what’s inside, and everyone’s is different maybe because everyone goes through different struggles. Kant defines virtue as “the moral strength of a human being’s will in fulfilling his duty.” If Kant were to critique me for real, he would describe my outlook as being less intense. This is because I don’t really understand my duty, and that means I’m not strong with it. As for my right and wrong, I still believe what I do is right, but it doesn’t make it right. Kant describes the morals to be duty based. And for me to be labeled as a duty based person isn’t politically correct. John Stuart Mill was an English philosopher, and a political economist. He was also an influential liberal thinker of the 19th century. And if he were to critique my views from right and wrong this is what I assume and researched him to say. He was influenced by a man named Mii and their famous Utilitarianism principle is “the greatest happiness principle.” And this was to make the most amount of people to be as happy as can be. This sounds similar to a principle cartoon characters for kids would say. He distinguishes pleasure from contentment, making them two different feelings. I agree with this. Having a 3 month party binge with pretty girls and thousands of dollars is pleasure, and creating a stable future with a loving wife and kids is contentment to me. Which one of these has utility though, is it the family or the party man The answer seems obvious here. It’s the family man who further carries on the name and provides for more then just himself. To carry on for the human race is much more important then splurging thousands of dollars on wealthy items. Instead of using words like pleasure and happiness, utilitarianism uses the word welfare. What’s best for your welfare? When put into this context, it makes more sense. Am I using myself to the best of the ability? Am I using my moral duty to utilize the resources that I do have. My views compared to the utilitarianism views are similar when it comes to using an object or time to the best potential. And it’s important to separate the lines between pleasure and happiness. By happiness they mean intended pleasure. Intended as in this was what was called for or strived for, not just an easy day of work. The absence of pain can also fall into this category. To critique myself even more with Mill’s views, is purpose. What am I here to do? It’s not for nature or God when it comes to utilitarianism. Reasoning and guidance wasn’t spoken much either. But happiness for the greater good and the greater majority is what they’re looking for. When it comes to the Greater Happiness Principle, it’s about the ultimate end, to have as much quantity and quality as possible. More then that, it’s about having the most happiness and least pain. Good habits can lead you to either direction. And the utilitarian standard is what’s right in conduct not the individuals happiness. To love your neighbour as yourself, would be the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality. They are about the people. This relates to my morals and views as well. I’d like it to have myself and others close to me to be just as successful. By this way, we can all build and grow together. This would make our team a huge, powerhouse of individuals. Now, with this, we will now be improving the world as we know it, instead of being a selfish, self-interested man living in the forest alone. Kant had a different state of mind. He wanted that person to fufill his or her duty, all of our duties being different. And using lots of reason to reflect our daily thoughts. When it comes to Mill, he wants us to be as happy as possible as well as the people around us, of course I expect he means the rest of the world as well. The test of morality is a test of utility.


POST 5
Soren Kierkegaard was a profound and prolific writer in the Danish "golden age". He crossed the boundaries of philosophy, theology, and others studies as well. The outcome of this is him being a very intellectual and artistic man. Not only this, he was a Christian thinker and the father of existentialism. He was on the constant tour of spreading Christian views. He would use biblical figures and use them to relate to modern day events and struggles so the people would understand. His attempts to revitalize Christianity came out in Danish church politics. He was also a poet, using religion as his subject matter. Most importantly, pertaining to this post, he was the father of existentialism. Existentialism is philosophical movement that deals with religious freedom. It actually contradicts the traditional philosophy that most philosophers have come up with. It’s has to do with the fundamentals of human conditions and how they react with the world around us. The freedom we have is questionable. And existentialism in definition, is hard to explain thoroughly because there are parts within that contradict the outlooks. The movement deals with the issue of actually dismissing that life has meaning, and this collides with Christian’s beliefs of why we are here. In existentialism, they want the individual to come up with the values themselves, and not be spoon fed what to do or say. They want the human to define what’s supposed to be fulfilling to them or not. Existentialism often is related with terms such as anxiety, death, and freedom. Christianity acknowledges these things also. Soren Kierkegaard was one of the first philosophers to create this existentialism. Him and Friedrich Nietzsche didn’t even use the term existentialism. Just like most of all philosophers, they were looking for the meaningfulness in life and the greater good of what’s out there, to find purpose within oneself.. And even more, rid of their boredom. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche have said that human nature and human identity are different depending on the values and beliefs that that person has for themselves. It’s always been a known fact, that everyone is different and in turn it changes someone’s outlooks and wants. Christianity is a religion and not a movement. It’s even the worlds largest religion. They believe in Jesus Christ of Nazareth. They believe he died for everyones sins on the cross, and that he arose days later to join his father in heaven. Christianity relates to existentialism, by how and what you make of yourself. Of course morals and values are used, but in the ultimate end, what’s it all for. For Christianity it’s all for eternity in heaven. For existentialism, it’s taking your freedom as human to the maximum of your capabilities. Even though it has been compared to Buddhist philosophy Abrahamic philosophy, the Christianity side still shows. Soren Kierkegaard was a Christian, and he was the Father of existentialism. This is how they relate with one another.


POST 6
In 1844, Marx had a series of writings and it was called the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts. He outlined and detailed out how communism is represented. Being a historian and social scientist he went in depth with the economy as well. Working with numbers and reviewing stats throughout the years, he came up with social, economic, political ideas that would flourish after his death. Those manuscripts weren’t published until the 1930’s. He writes his thoughts on how capitalism and communism contrast with one another. Communism was more efficient to Marx then capitalism. With communism, he figured out that people can develop freely while working with one another in cooperation other then stepping on each other to succeed with capitalism. After being expelled from his school in Paris, he found a new home in Brussels where he studied history and the material conception of history. By doing this, he pinpointed times of lower points in the economy and overall status of a country’s money situation. With this knowledge, he predicted collapses in an economy with capitalism. The writing that he worked on that dealt with this issue was the German Ideology. This work was also published after his death. This shows how outrageous and not sync with the current times his thoughts and ideals were with the rest of the world. No one catered to him but he did have a good philosopher companion named Friedrich Engels. They would end up having life long friendships with one another. Karl also was in the works with The Poverty of Philosophy. It was his views on the opposition of idealistic socialism. He was into communism and thought it was the path for a moral society. 1848, Marx had joined the Communist League. Here he was placed as one of the top theoreticians. During this time, revolutions were occurring all over Europe. Thankfully for him, he was able to move back to Paris. His time spend on economy was plenty. He ended up putting together a 800 page manuscript on capital, property, wage, trade, and the world market. Marx was put a lot of his time into this even though the progress was slow. Even himself, he didn’t have much savings or money to provide for himself or his family. His longtime friend would help him out with feeding him and his slowly decreasing family. Hard times bring hard thoughts. Before his death, he had a great impression on Germany and Russia. His contemporary politics spread throughout here. He had ambitions of having Russia skip their capitalistic views and come to communism where the equality of man is expressed in the economy. In capitalism, he believes people are out for themselves and trying to step over one another to reach higher goals, and with communism everyone has an equal hand in success. To give to the poor from the rich is a Robin Hood mentality that reaches communism. Karl didn’t agree with capitalism at all. He sums up communism into a single quote, and that’s “Abolition of private property. To him, his fellow philosophers and theologians, and followers this was the true, morally correct standpoint. No private property means equality. A sought after moral society according to Karl Marx’s views would be a place where everyones equal, this includes their property, income, and current status in the economy. Similar to the Army’s slogan, which is “An Army of One.” Here we have the people working for the people, with no extra amenities for anyone.


POST 7

Death of God
According to Nietzsche, in order for man to move on with life, is to drop all presumptions that God lives. By doing this, you can now grasp something new to believe in, and to Friedrich this is the way to go. He uses a man for example, to show what man thinks. He tells the people that God has met his demise and that he no longer exists because of the people themselves. It’s the people who have mentally erased him. It’s said that reason and science has abolished the actual existence of God and it’s all our own doing, we chose for this to happen. And now that God doesn’t exist, we can now be one with the Earth, and create the proper values that we’re suppose to have.

Truth
He begins with a fable. The fable has to do with humans and how we are born on this planet and started the trend of having knowledge and intellect. It started off with us and ended with us. We are the makers and breakers of thought and reason, more then that we have created what we call wisdom. Behind the curtain though, lies deception. Side by side with the intellect and righteousness of knowledge there’s an opposite field. He gives detail of how humans need one another to be themselves. We are herd-like in sense. He says the things that we do know are just metaphors. Blindly, we assume we know between facts and fiction, when really it’s all superficial. Intellect has become a fashionable. People have it to boost themselves and not just for the honor of it all. Truth comes from within, and it’s supposed to. Unfortunately, not everyone is capable.

Morality as Anti-Nature
Nature is supposed to take its course. With morals, the story is different. Morals mold and change decisions and situations. The end result will be a less drastic one. With passion minded mentality, we have people acting crudely and more for their wants. Morality has the tendency of fighting cravings and impulse made actions. Is this the smart way? There’s a balance between the two that should be and could be found. Churches support discipline and fights passion, unless it’s passion for the Church or Christ. Without cravings and impulse, we can stop a stupid move before it even happens. To think ahead and see the consequence of a quick impulse can save anyone from embarrassment or harm.

Jesus
Sin is to be said is anything that hinders you from getting closer to God and his Gospel. Distance between him and you is created with sinning. Eternal life with him doesn’t ensure anything that isn’t said but it’s more of a stated future of the reality you will have when you pass. Jesus as a Savior has been supported by Nietzsche. A divine and/or blessed life is what one should look for. Being a child of God is about a way of life. Salvation is the solution and conclusion. Jesus didn’t save mankind, but he taught mankind how to live, divinely. He influenced and taught millions. Jesus died doing what he did, and that was what he was called to do.


Paul
Being one with God is or was not a privilege. It’s something that must be worked for. Paul states the absurdity of an innocent dying as a sacrifice for the souls of the guilty. He doesn’t like this. He questions Jesus and the Trinity, of how what if Jesus didn’t even rise again, then all would be lost. And when it comes to higher beings and religion, you don’t question the authority, besides Jesus did rise again. Paul compares Christianity with Buddhism. He says that Buddhism promises nothing but fulfills those promises. Yet, Christianity promises everything but fulfills nothing. This is probably because the final benefits are reached at the end of life on earth and found in the eternal reckoning of heaven.

Myth of Eternal Recurrence
I watched a movie similar to this and it was Groundhog day with Bill Murray. He was set to live everyday of his life to be the same exact day. Except in the reading, it says for a demon to approach you and tell you the news that after you die, you’ll live the same lifetime over and over. Curse him? I would not. Fate is fate, and it’s on you what to believe, but to go along with it and actually live the same lifetime again and again, what we would we do. It’s a sad resolution though, what to live for then? Carpe diem wouldn’t apply here. Eternal recurrence is mysterious, scary thinking. Obviously you wouldn’t know though if you were reliving the same lifetime because if you did, you would change your thoughts and actions from the previous lifetime.

Free Spirit
Another writing about God is dead and belief in him has no future. Having a free-spirit now allows people to in their own mind, develop freely and to their most potential instead of believing in and following someone else’s teaching. If were too busy thinking and pondering about consequences and being dealt with how can we further move on without clouding our minds with directions and rules. Individuals prepare for the worst when they could be improving their lifestyles instead of having a worry war with yourself.