Philosophy

My Reflections on Putin’s Previous Press Conferences Ahead of the New "Direct Line"

I anticipated the content of the “press conference” and warned it would be nothing but fiction - a political vaudeville act unworthy of the name. Over my 90+ years, I’ve witnessed and participated in countless political events. What the president orchestrates today is a mockery of our trusting people.

Millions agonized over how to phrase questions that might reach him without causing offense, desperate to expose the injustices plaguing their lives. For two decades, citizens have pleaded, “Mr. President, save us!” Yet this charade persists, a cruel joke on the nation. Mr. Peskov, the Kremlin’s master director, ensured every detail was scripted. A performance for sheep.

The president recycled tired tropes: “We’re better than the West.” Better at what? Dying? With 13% of Russians - 22 million people - living below the poverty line, why did he ignore the stark contrast between their suffering and the obscene wealth of his cronies and family? He casually claims poverty will drop to 6% by 2030 (still 9 million souls). How? No answers.

I know poverty. My parents were working-class: a chimney sweep and a school cleaner. I rose to become a retired colonel. The 1930s brought industrialization, collectivization, and famine. The war demanded sacrifice: “Everything for the front!” Post-1946 famine, rebuilding was grueling. Yet by 1948, food prices fell yearly until Stalin’s death.

You boast of reducing poverty by 2000—to 22 million. Who created that crisis? Your idol, the man who appointed you, whose family lives richer than the Romanovs. He should stand trial for crimes against the state. Instead, he gets monuments.

Today, Russian athletes are banned from representing their country. The president himself is barred from the Olympics. Who answers for this shame? Not Putin - his cronies like Mutko (Putin’s ally, still living large) orchestrated this disgrace. Putin will fade, but Russia’s humiliation remains.

Our global standing has collapsed. Where was our “authority” during the Karabakh bloodshed? We’ve turned allies into enemies under St. Petersburg’s “wise” leadership, then blame “Russophobia.” But who sowed its roots?

I served 30 years in air defense, including during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Back then, we never brandished missiles or threatened annihilation. Our nuclear forces were shields, not swords.

When Leaders Lie

Journalists lie for profit - that I understand. But when a 68-year-old president of a nation as vast as Russia lies, it chills me. How can a man who swore to defend this country, who received free education here, spew such brazen falsehoods?

He claims Soviet retirees who worked received no pensions. Nonsense. I retired at 50 in 1980, drew a pension, and worked at a research institute. My wife did the same. Every pensioner I knew worked and collected pensions. Why lie? To paint the past as bleak and your rule as salvation?

Your “salvation” means 22 million in poverty, meager pensions, and elders burning alive in privatized nursing homes. Eleven died days ago - just another “ordinary” tragedy. Who licenses these death traps? Does the state check safety, staffing, or fire protocols? No. Privatizing elder care cuts costs and enriches owners. Profitable, indeed.

The Rot Runs Deep

These annual press spectacles solve nothing. When fixing a broken pipe requires presidential intervention, the system is rotten. Centralizing power won’t heal corruption—it fuels it.

Russia needs systemic change, not scripted theatrics.

Afterword

Yet I still hope.

I hope President Putin will continue removing oligarchs from power and appointing young leaders who understand ordinary people’s lives - not out-of-touch fat cats who think they rule the world.

I likely won’t live to see that day. But what matters is that my grandchildren grow up with integrity and help build a fairer society.

Colonel Chigoev

Vanity: 1. excessive pride in or admiration of one's own appearance or achievements. 2. the quality of being worthless or futile.

"Vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labor which he taketh under the sun? One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever...The thing that hath been, it is that that shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there anything whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath been already of old time, which was before us. There is no remembrance of former things, neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after. I Ecclesiastes (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastes) was king over Israel in Jerusalem. And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith. I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and behold all is vanity and vexation [the state of being annoyed, frustrated, or worried] of spirit...I communed with mine own heart saying, Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem: yea, my heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge. And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit. For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

I said in mine heart, Go to now, I will prove thee with mirth [amusement, especially as expressed in laughter] and will rejoice in good deeds: and, behold, this also is vanity. I said of laughter, It is mad: and of mirth, What doeth it? I sought in mine heart to give myself unto wine, yet acquainting mine heart with wisdom; and to lay hold on folly, till I might see what was that good for the sons of men, which they should do under the heaven all the days of their life. I made me great works; I builded me houses; I planted me vineyards: I made me gardens and orchards, and I planted trees in them of all kind of fruits: I made me pools of water, to water therewith the wood that bringeth forth trees: I got me servants and maidens, and had servants born in my house; also I had great possessions of great and small cattle above all that were in Jerusalem before me: I gathered me also silver and gold, and the jewels of kings and the provinces: I got me men singers and women singers, and the delights of the sons of men—musical instruments of all sorts. So I was great, and increased more than all that were before me in Jerusalem: also my wisdom remained with me. And whatsoever mine eyes desired I kept not from them, I withheld not my heart from any joy.

...Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labor that I had labored to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun. And I turned myself to behold wisdom, and madness, and folly. But I perceived that one event happeneth to them all. Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so it happeneth even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my heart, that this also is vanity. For there is no remembrance of the wise more than of the fool forever; seeing that which now is in the days to come shall all be forgotten. And how dieth the wise man? As the fool. Therefore I hated life; because the work that is wrought under the sun is grievous unto me: for all is vanity and vexation of spirit. Yea, I hated all my labor which I had taken under the sun: because I should leave it unto the man that shall be after me....For what hath man of all his labor, and of the vexation of his heart, wherein he hath labored under the sun? For all his days are sorrows, and his travail grief; yea, his heart taketh not rest in the night. This is also vanity. It is not given to a man to have the blessing that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labor..

All things come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous, and to the wicked; to the good and to the clean, and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not: as is the good, so is the sinner; and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath. This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of man is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead. For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion forever in anything that is done under the sun." - King Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Chapters 1, 2, and 9; Leo Tolstoy, Confession, Chapter Six

The Basis Of Things: https://lemmy.world/post/25358461

Over 2,000 years ago, Plato described prisoners in a cave, shackled and forced to watch shadows on a wall, mistaking these illusions for reality. When one prisoner escapes and sees the real world, the truth is overwhelming. But when he returns to free the others, they reject him.

Now, swap the cave for a smartphone. The shadows for social media, curated feeds, and AI-driven content. Are we any different from Plato’s prisoners? We consume reality through screens, shaped by algorithms that decide what we see, think, and believe. Our attention is bought and sold, our perceptions manipulated.

If you were shown the "real world" beyond this digital illusion, free from biases, dopamine loops, and controlled narratives. Would you even believe it? Or would you, like Plato’s prisoners, reject the truth in favor of comforting shadows?

Are we still chained? Or is there a way out?

"One thing only is needful: the knowledge of the simple and clear truth which finds place in every soul that is not stupefied by religious and scientific superstitions—the truth that for our life one law is valid—the law of love (seen in the sense of things like the laws of physics), which brings the highest happiness to every individual as well as to all mankind. Free your minds from those overgrown, mountainous imbecilities which hinder your recognition of it, and at once the truth will emerge from amid the pseudo-religious nonsense that has been smothering it." - Leo Tolstoy, A Letter To A Hindu, December of 1908 (roughly two years before his death): https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7176/7176-h/7176-h.htm

Tolstoy believed that an objective interpretation of the Sermon On The Mount - Matt 5-7, and its precepts—including to "not take an oath at all," holds the potential of becoming a kind of constitution for our conscience so to speak—for our hearts, as a species.

Leo Tolstoy's Wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Tolstoy

There is no 'the answer'... or we don't know 'the answer'... or we don't know if there is a 'the answer'... or we don't know if we can know the 'the answer'? 4 kinds of agnosticism, all different.

Which famous philosopher said this before me? I'm sure I'm not the first to have thought about it this way.

"In my search for the answers to the question of life ["I am a human, therefore, how should I live? What do I do?"] I had exactly the same feeling as a man who has lost his way in a forest. He has come out into a clearing, climbed a tree, and has a clear view of limitless space, but he sees that there is no house there and that there cannot be one; he goes into the trees, into the darkness, and sees darkness, and there too there is no house. In the same way I wandered in this forest of human knowledge between the rays of light of the mathematical and experimental sciences, which opened up clear horizons to me but in a direction where there could be no house, and into the darkness of the speculative sciences, where I was plunged into further darkness the further I moved on, and finally I was convinced that there was not and could not be any way out.

As I gave myself up to the brighter side of the sciences, I understood that I was only taking my eyes off the question. However enticing and clear the horizons opening upon before me, however enticing it was to plunge myself into the infinity of these sciences were, the less they served me, the less they answered my question. "Well, I know everything that science so insistently wants to know," I said to myself, "but on this path there is no answer to the question of the meaning of my life." In the speculative sphere I understood that although, or precisely because, sciences aim was directed straight at the answer than the one I was giving myself: "What is the meaning of my life?" "None." Or: "What will come out of my life?" "Nothing." Or: "Why does everything exist that exists, and why do I exist?" "Because it exists."

Asking questions on one side of human science, I received a countless quantity of precise answers to questions I wasn't asking: about the chemical composition of the stars; the movement of the sun toward the constellation Hercules; the origin of species and of man; the forms of infinitely small atoms; the vibration of infinitely small, weightless particles of ether—but there was only one answer in this area of science to my question, "In what is the meaning of my life?": "You are what you call your life; but you are an ephemeral, casual connection of particles. The interaction, the change of these particles produces in you what you call your life. This connection will last some time; then the interaction of these particles will stop—and what you call your life will stop and all your questions will stop too. You are a lump of something stuck together by chance. The lump decays. The lump calls this decay its life. The lump will disintegrate and the decay and all its questions will come to an end." That is the answer given by the bright side of science, and it cannot give any other if it just strictly follows its principles. With such an answer it turns out the answer doesn't answer my question. I need to know the meaning of my life, but it's being a particle of the infinite not only gives it no meaning but destroys any possible meaning.

The other side of science, the speculative, when it strictly adheres to its principles in answering the question directly, gives and has given the same answer everywhere and in all ages: "The world is something infinte and unintelligible. Human life is an incomprehensible piece of this incomprehensible 'whole'." Again I exclude all the compromises between speculative and experimental sciences that constitute the whole ballast of the semi-sciences, the so-called jurisprudential, political, and historical. Into these sciences again one finds wrongly introduced the notions of development, of perfection, with the difference only that there it was the development of the whole whereas here it is of the life of people. What is wrong is the same: development and perfection in the infinite can have neither aim nor direction and in relation to my question give no answer.

Where speculative science is exact, namely in true philosophy—not in what Shopenhauer called "professorial philosophy" which only serves to distribute all existing phenomena in neat philosophical tables and gives them new names—there where a philosopher doesn't lose sight of the essential question, the answer, always one and the same, is the answer given by Socrates, Solomon, Buddha...

• "The life of the body is evil and a lie. And therefore the destruction of this life of the body is something good, and we must desire it," says Socrates.
• "Life is that which ought not to be—an evil—and the going into nothingness is the sole good of life," says Shopenhauer.
• "Everything in the world—folly and wisdom and riches and poverty and happiness and grief—[vanity of vanities] all is vanity and nonsense. Man will die and nothing will remain. And that is foolish," says Solomon.
• "One must not live with the awareness of the inevitability of suffering, weakness, old age, and death—one must free oneself from life, from all possibility of life," says Buddha.

And what these powerful intellects said was said and thought and felt by millions and millions of people like them. And I too thought and felt that. So that my wanderings in science not only did not take me out of despair but only increased it. One science did not answer the question of life; another science did answer, directly confirming my despair and showing that the view I had reached wasn't the result of my delusion, of the morbid state of mind—on the contrary, it confirmed for me what I truly thought and agreed with the conclusions of the powerful intellects of mankind. It's no good deceiving oneself. All is vanity. Happy is he who was not born; death is better than life; one needs to be rid of life." - Leo Tolstoy, Confession, Chapter six

The simple yet profound meaning Tolstoy found within our philosophy of morality (religion), in my opinion: https://lemmy.world/post/25969548

Tolstoy wasn't religious, however: "One thing only is needful: the knowledge of the simple and clear truth which finds place in every soul that is not stupefied by religious and scientific superstitions—the truth that for our life one law is valid—the law of love (seen in the sense of things like the laws of physics), which brings the highest happiness to every individual as well as to all mankind. Free your minds from those overgrown, mountainous imbecilities which hinder your recognition of it, and at once the truth will emerge from amid the pseudo-religious nonsense that has been smothering it." - Leo Tolstoy, A Letter To A Hindu, December of 1908 (roughly two years before his death): https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7176/7176-h/7176-h.htm

A minimalist philosophy for everyday.

Principle: Most that comes out is to be disposed of. Everything that goes in must be considered. The area around each hole must be kept clean.

Part 1: https://lemmy.ml/post/26366649

Part 2: https://lemmy.ml/post/26569540

I have somewhat digressed from the topic of spiritual wealth, but a person’s spiritual richness or poverty still depends, to some extent, on the spiritual state of the society in which that individual lives. I spent the majority of my life under Soviet rule. Undoubtedly, the ideology of Marxism-Leninism significantly influenced my worldview. Our generation did not have the opportunity to critically evaluate the dominant ideology. I fervently believed in socialism and communism, especially until the mid-1970s, and I perceived spiritual nourishment through the lens of Marxism-Leninism. Everything that fit into the Procrustean bed of Marxism was considered correct, and everything else was discarded. Considering that I was the number one communist in my household, you can understand that I had to adhere to Marxism as devoutly as a priest adheres to the Bible. It’s especially hard to realize that during the best years of my life, I was like a blind kitten. I’ve somewhat strayed from the theme of “my years, my wealth,” but indirectly, I’m still answering what kind of wealth our generation’s years held. Perhaps these words imply that my wealth is measured by the number of years I’ve lived? I disagree with that. The richest person is a newborn. The greatest wealth is the time allotted to you for life, and the more years I live, the poorer I become. I’ll soon be 80, so I’m on the brink of poverty. Soon, not only my wealth but I myself will be gone. What can you do? That’s how nature works. The old fades away, and the new is born and thrives.

And that’s how it should be. Otherwise, there would be complete chaos on Earth. Death, as paradoxical as it may sound, is a necessary phenomenon for the normal existence of humanity. Therefore, we should approach it more calmly and philosophically. If a person reaches an advanced age—80, 90, or 100—and passes away, there’s no need to make it a tragedy. Of course, it’s always sad when someone leaves, but it’s natural. However, when young people die—whether violently, from illness, accidents, or other causes—it’s truly a tragedy. There’s no justification for that. A person should live at least until 100. That’s normal, and I strive for that. I have a wife who has been with me for over 60 years and guards my health like the apple of her eye. She truly does everything to ensure I exist on this sinful Earth for as long as possible. We have a direct need for this. The thing is, sooner or later, we might have a great-grandchild from Katya. The question is: Who will take them for walks in the stroller? Of course, it will be my wife and me. Katya will need to work, and the great-grandchild’s grandmother will also be working, so it’s up to us—the great-grandfather and great-grandmother. So, nothing works without us. It’s good to have many children. Someone will always need you. And when you’re needed, that feeling contributes to prolonging life. I don’t believe it when some people roll their eyes and say, “Oh, I don’t want to live anymore; I’m tired of life.” That’s not true! Everyone wants to live, and as long as possible. And there’s no need to fear death. I often ponder questions of life and death. Of course, our older generation will pass, but we also remain. My wife and I have four daughters, three grandsons, five granddaughters, two great-grandsons, and three great-granddaughters. In each of them, there’s a piece of our flesh and blood. That’s where we live on. That’s immortality.

As for material wealth, I’d like to quote a poem by the grandson of Nicholas I, Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich:

I am fortune’s darling, from my birth,

Wealth and honors, rank and worth,

Called me to heights, to lofty aims,

Destined for greatness, by noble claims.

But what are riches, gold, or might?

The grave consumes all, day or night.

The glittering show, the fleeting gleam,

Will vanish like a wave’s brief dream.

I don’t think one could say more accurately or profoundly about the role and significance of earthly blessings. The poem is taken from the book Heartfelt Secrets of the House of Romanov, page 6.

I wanted to end this theme of “My Years, My Wealth” here, but on September 19, an event related to my years occurred, and I cannot help but mention it. The fact is that on September 15, 2010, I turned 80. Since the date, from a certain perspective, isn’t very cheerful, I didn’t want to celebrate it in a grand way. I didn’t want any formality. But my youngest daughter, born in the village of Tiksi, convinced her sisters, and on September 19, they gathered everyone at the Georgian restaurant “Amirani”. The restaurant is small, very cozy, and beautiful. I expected the usual clichéd toasts, various praises, and comments about how wonderful I am, and so on. But what my daughter Fatima and her husband Artem organized exceeded all expectations. It wasn’t about the table set or the drinks, though all that was there. The main thing was the expression of respect and love for us, the great-grandmother and great-grandfather, from our children, sons-in-law, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, and great-granddaughters. But what delighted my wife and me wasn’t just how wonderfully my anniversary was organized. We were thrilled by the warmth and love everyone showed each other at this event. Relationships between children are not a simple matter. I’m proud of my children, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, and great-granddaughters. All four of my daughters have higher education, as do all my sons-in-law. My grandson Alexey graduated from a military university. My granddaughters Tatyana, Oksana, Alena, and Natasha also have higher education. My grandson Zhenya is a second-year student at Moscow State University. My granddaughter Ekaterina is a second-year student at the Higher School of Economics University. And the most important thing is that every single one of them entered university without any connections or favors. How can one not be proud of such descendants?

"Towards the end of my second year in England I came across two Theosophists (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy), brothers, and both unmarried. They talked to me about the Gita. They were reading Sir Edwin Arnold's translation—The Song Celestial—and they invited me to read the original with them. I felt ashamed, as I had read the divine poem neither in Sanskrit not in Gujarati. I was constrained to tell them that I had not read the Gita, but that I would gladly read it with them, and that though my knowledge of Sanskrit was meagre, still I hoped to be able to understand the original to the extent of telling where the translation failed to bring out the meaning. I began reading the Gita with them. The verses in the second chapter made a deep impression on my mind, and they still ring in my ears:

• "If one
• Ponders on objects of the sense, there springs
• Attraction; from attraction grows desire,
• Desire flames to fierce passion, passion breeds
• Recklessness; then the memory—all betrayed—
• Let's noble purpose go, and saps the mind,
• Till purpose, mind, and man are all undone."

The book struck me as one of priceless worth. The impression had ever since been growing on me with the result that I regard it today as the book par excellence for the knowledge of Truth. It had afforded me invaluable help in my moments of gloom. I have read almost all the English translations of it, and regard Sir Edwin Arnold's as the best (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Song_Celestial). He has been faithful to the text, and yet it does not read like a translation. Though I read the Gita with these friends, I cannot pretend to have studied it then. It was only after some years that it became a book of daily reading." - Mahatma Gandhi, The Story of My Experiments With Truth, Part 1, Chapter 20: "Acquaintance With Religions"

~~

The Basis of Things: https://lemmy.world/post/23294152

When Tolstoy speaks of Christianity, he's refering to his more objective, philosophical, non supernatural interpretation of his translation of the Gospels: The Gospel In Brief. For context: https://lemmy.world/post/25679868

"State violence can only cease when there are no more wicked men in society," say the champions of the existing order of things, assuming in this of course that since there will always be wicked men, it can never cease. And that would be right enough if it were the case, as they assume, that the oppressors are always the best of men, and that the sole means of saving men from evil is by violence. Then, indeed, violence could never cease. But since this is not the case, but quite the contrary, that it is not the better oppress the worse, but the worse oppress the better, and since violence will never put an end to evil, and there is, moreover, another means of putting an end to it, the assertion that violence will never cease is incorrect. The use of violence grows less and less and evidently must disappear. But this will not come to pass, as some champions of the existing order imagine, through the oppressed becoming better and better under the influence of government (on the contrary, its influence causes their continual degradation), but through the fact that all men are constantly growing better and better of themselves, so that even the most wicked, who are in power, will become less and less wicked, till at last they are so good as to be incapable of using violence.

The progressive movement of humanity does not proceed from the better elements in society siezing power and making those who are subject to them better, by forcible means, as both conservatives and revolutionists imagine. It proceeds first and principally from the fact that all men in general are advancing steadily and undeviantingly toward a more and more conscious assimilation of the Christian theory of life; and secondly, from the fact that, even apart from conscious spiritual life, men are unconsciously brought into a more Christian attitude to life by the very process of one set of men grasping the power, and again being replaced, by others.

The worse elements of society, gaining possession of power, under the sobering influence which always accompanies power, grow less and less cruel, and become incapable of using cruel forms of violence. Consequently others are able to seize their place, and the same process of softening and, so to say, unconscious Christianizing goes on with them. It is something like the process of ebullition [a sudden outburst of emotion or violence]. The majority of men, having the non-Christian view of life, always strive for power and struggle to obtain it. In this struggle the most cruel, the coarsest, the least Christain elements of society over power the most gentle, well-disposed, and Christian, and rise by means of their violence to the upper ranks of society. And in them is Christ's prophecy fulfulled: "Woe to you that are rich! Woe unto you that are full! Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you!" For the men who are in possession of power and all that results from it—glory and wealth—and have attained the various aims they set before themselves, recognizing the vanity of it all and return to the position from which they came. Charles V., John IV., Alexander I., recognizing the emptiness and evil of power, renounced it because they were incapable of using violence for their own benefit as they had done.

But they are not the solitary examples of this recognition of the emptiness and evil of power. Everyone who gains a position of power he has striven for, every general, every minister, every millionaire, every petty official who has gained the place he has coveted for ten years, every rich peasant who had laid by some hundred rubles, passes through this unconscious process of softening.

And not only individual men, but societies of men, whole nations, pass through this process.

The seductions of power, and all the wealth, honor, and luxury it gives, seem a sufficient aim for men's efforts only so long as they are unattained. Directly a man reaches them and sees all their vanity, and they gradually lose all their power of attraction. They are like clouds which have form and beauty only from the distance; directly one ascends into them, all their splendor vanishes.

Men who are in possession of power and wealth, sometimes even those who have gained for themselves their power and wealth, but more often their heirs, cease to be so eager for power, and so cruel in their efforts to obtain it.

Having learnt by experience, under the operation of Christian influence, the vanity of all that is gained by violence, men sometimes in one, sometimes in several generations lose the vices which are generated by the passion for power and wealth. They become less cruel and so cannot maintain their position, and are expelled from power by others less Christian and more wicked. Thus they return to a rank of society lower in position, but higher in morality, raising thereby the average level of Christian conciousness in men. But directly after them again the worst, coarsest, least Christian elements of society rise to the top, and are subjected to the same process as their predecessors, and again in a generation or so, seeing the vanity of what is gained by violence, and having imbibed [absorb or assimilate (ideas or knowledge)] Christianity, they come down again among the oppressed, and their place is again filled by new oppressors, less brutal than former oppressors, though more so than those they oppress. So that, although power remains externally the same as it was, with every change of the men in power there is a constant increase of the number of men who have been brought by experience to the necessity of assimilating the Christian [divine] conception of life, and with every change—though it is the coarsest, cruelest, and least Christian who come into possession of power, they are less coarse and cruel and more Christian than their predecessors when they gained possession of power.

Power selects and attracts the worst elements of society, transforms them, improves and softens them, and returns them to society.

Such is the process by means of which Christianity, in spite of the hinderances to human progress resulting from violence of power, gains more and more hold of men. Christianity penetrates to the conciousness of men, not only in spite of the violence of power, but also by means of it.

And therefore the assertion of the champions of the state, that if the power of government were suppressed the wicked would oppress the good, not only fails to show that that is to be dreaded, since it is just what happens now, but proves, on the contrary, that it is governmental power which enables the wicked to oppress the good, and is the evil most desirable to suppress, and that it is being gradually suppressed in the natural course of things." - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom Of God Is Within You

Could a Life Learning to Desire For the Least, Be What Ultimately Leads to a Life of the Most? https://lemmy.world/post/22510415

This essay by Evald Vasilyevich Ilyenkov (1924–79), “On the Coincidence of Logic with Dialectics and the Theory of Knowledge of Materialism,” was published in his most widely known work, Dialectical Logic: Essays on Its History and Theory (first edition in Russian, 1974). The English translation by H. Campbell Creighton is from the edition published by Progress Publishers, Moscow 1977. In this adapted essay, Ilyenkov discusses the idea of the coincidence of dialectics, logics, and theory of knowledge, which was one of the hallmarks of the Ilyenkovian current in post-Stalin Soviet philosophy. Originally, the idea was jotted down by V. I. Lenin in his Philosophical Notebooks when he was reading G. W. F. Hegel in 1914 and 1915, as a critique against the separation of the theory of knowledge from other fields of philosophy.

Ilyenkov was one of the most important and controversial Soviet Marxist philosophers. He contributed substantially to the Marx Renaissance that emerged in the so-called Thaw Period and aimed at the reconstruction of Marx’s original methodology. In 1960, his first book, The Dialectics of the Abstract and the Concrete in Marx’s “Capital,” was published, to be followed by important articles and studies on the concept of the ideal and on problems of dialectical logic. Ilyenkov was known as an ardent critic of technocratic tendencies in the Soviet Union. He stressed that socialist society should express humanist values and not merely be an engineering project. Although Ilyenkov had constant problems with the Soviet philosophical establishment, which viewed his innovatory ideas with suspicion, he did not regard himself as a dissident and remained a member of the Party. He died by his own hands on March 21, 1979.

Part 1: https://lemmy.ml/post/26366649

And in general, we need to define what wealth is. How is this wealth measured? Of course, any of us wants to live well. But what does it mean to live well? For some, it is enough to have a good apartment, a dacha (summer cottage), a car, and healthy children who do not have bad habits and stand firmly on their feet in life. For others, even millions of dollars are not enough—they want billions. So how much money and property does one need to feel satisfied in this life, and for their years to be their wealth? I suppose no one can answer this question. But there is wealth that is not just material. To know oneself, to understand the world around us, to explore the art created by humanity—literature, music, and so on. Isn’t that wealth? I have already mentioned that I come from a very poor family, but I did not pay much attention to my poverty and did not worry about being poor as some young people do.

Since childhood, I loved reading. Not far from our home, there was a decent library. At that time, the library mainly had classical literature. I read foreign, Russian, Georgian, and Armenian classical literature, of course, what was printed in the Georgian language. That is wealth. It is impossible to list all the authors whose works I read—there are too many of them. Since childhood, I had a strong desire to read. We lived on the outskirts of the city, and frankly, apart from reading books, I had no other entertainment. I had no money or decent clothes to go to the city center for movies, and the cinemas were far from our home. We didn’t have a TV or even a radio. A radio was installed in our shack around 1948. So books, and only books, were my source of knowledge about the world. However, I must say that the radio greatly expanded my knowledge, especially in music. The radio broadcast amazing musical programs—opera music by Verdi, Tchaikovsky, Paliashvili, Gounod, Mussorgsky, Puccini, Beethoven, Glinka, Mozart, and many others. At first, I did not appreciate opera or classical music. I thought it was not for us, or at least not for me. But something interesting happened in my life.

I wrote in my memoirs that I was born in the mountains of South Ossetia, in the village of Jvaris-Ubani. The thing is, my mother, who already lived in Tbilisi, was in Jvaris-Ubani for the summer when she went into labor. At the same time, my father was arrested. Well, it was 1930! My mother also had my older brother, who was 2 years old at the time. So my mother left me in the village with a woman from the Plievi family and returned to Tbilisi. Since she was a healthy woman and had breast milk to spare, she was hired to breastfeed the son of another woman. This woman was a veterinarian and worked in market sanitation, checking the quality of meat. Sometimes she even threw us some pieces of meat, though this was after the war. So, around 1947 or 1948, I became curious about who had drunk my milk. My mother gave me their address, and I went to meet my milk brother. He turned out to be a very good boy, and we became friends. His father had been repressed, which was quite common in those years. They lived on Rustaveli Avenue. The apartment wasn’t great, but it was near the opera house. It turned out that the ticket checker at the opera was a good friend of his mother. Naturally, Nodari, my milk brother, started taking me to the opera on weekends, and sometimes on other days, for daytime performances. We went there because this woman let us in without tickets. I had no musical education or understanding of what opera was.

The first opera I listened to was The Tsar’s Bride. Everything was nice and cozy, with soft, comfortable seats. The only bad thing was that the Tsar’s bride had a very loud voice, and I couldn’t fall asleep for a long time. Eventually, I did fall asleep. The next time, we went to listen to Rigoletto. Since I had already figured out how to “listen,” I fell asleep instantly. I woke up specifically for the Duke’s aria, La donna è mobile. But with Carmen, the music captivated me from the overture, and I listened with delight until the very end. Later, I listened to operas by Tchaikovsky, Glinka, Mussorgsky, Gounod, and other composers. Opera music fascinated me so much that when I later attended a drama theater performance, I missed the music and musical accompaniment. I realized how much music enhances the perception of what is happening on stage. Much later, when I was an officer and on leave in Tbilisi, I listened to Paliashvili’s opera Daisi (Evening Glow, in Georgian). I left the opera house feeling enlightened, cleansed of everyday dirt. I wanted to do something good for people. I thought that a person who listened to such music as Daisi, Tchaikovsky’s First Piano Concerto, Rachmaninoff’s Second Concerto, Grieg’s Peer Gynt, or the works of other great composers, could not do anything dirty or vile. In my opinion, classical music, if understood, cleanses the soul like a prayer spoken before God in a state of deep emotional excitement. I am deeply grateful to those who introduced me to such spiritual wealth as opera and classical music, and I sincerely feel sorry for those who reject or refuse to appreciate such treasures, preferring only material goods.

I am generally amazed by the abundance of great figures in music, literature, painting, and art in the 19th century. The 20th century also produced great works of art, but the 19th century is unparalleled in this regard. At least, the pseudo-art that emerged in the 20th century and flourished in the 21st did not exist in the 19th century. My generation had the fortunate opportunity to engage with real art, not pseudo-art as we see today. Of course, this does not mean that everything was good then and everything is bad now. That would be an incorrect conclusion. There was also a lot of negativity and even repulsive things in the life of my generation. We were raised in the spirit of loyalty to the cause of Lenin and Stalin. We didn’t fully understand what Lenin and Stalin were up to, but we shouted that we were faithful to their cause. If we had said otherwise, things would have gone badly for us. Unfortunately, in our time, all aspects of life, including art, literature, and music, were limited by the postulates of Marxism-Leninism. Stalin’s statements on any issue were considered the ultimate truth. If you objected, you would become a gold miner in Kolyma or a lumberjack—neither of which was pleasant, and the living conditions were harsh. So, even if we disagreed with Stalin, we expressed enthusiastic admiration for the fact that such a genius was leading our country. Unfortunately, in our time, the opinion of one person determined what we should read, listen to, or see. Anything that did not align with his views was considered bad and dangerous for the people. That’s how the “father of nations” cared for our moral and ideological education. I well remember a number of decisions by the Central Committee of the Communist Party regarding literature and art, where the works of writers, musicians, and artists were subjected to devastating criticism. By the late 1940s, a campaign against cosmopolitanism and admiration for the West had begun. It’s interesting—if Comrade Stalin could see what is happening in our country today in terms of cosmopolitanism and admiration for the West, he wouldn’t just turn in his grave—he’d spin like a fan.

I have dwelled on Stalinism in such detail because Stalinism also contributed its terrible share to the spiritual education of the younger generation in the 1930s and 1940s of the last century, and the consequences of such education are still felt today.

To be continued...

Tolstoy: "I am a man [human]. How should I live? What do I do?"

Salt and Light

“You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet."

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." - Matt 5:13, 14

The Salt

We're humans. Therefore, how should we live? What do we do? Well, what good is salt if it's lost the reason for its existence—to preserve foods or make them taste better?Considering humans unparalleled potential for selflessness in contrast to any other living thing that's (supposedly) ever existed, wouldn't it become incredibly obvious what the reason for a creature as conscious and capable as a human is made to live for? Objectively, God or not: to strive to be as selfless as possible; to be able to acknowledge any of its more barbaric and selfish thoughts or behaviors—at all in the first place—and abstain from them, for a purpose outside of itself. This is the "salt": Selflessness; what good is a human that's lost its purpose? What good are humans as a whole if we've lost our purpose as a whole? Crippling ourselves, defiling our own minds from the images of our past or potential futures we create in our heads via the double edged sword that is our imagination, governing so much over how we feel and behave today; our desires and vanities for the sake of ourselves taking precedence over our design, i.e., building your house (your life) on the sand—like most people—opposed to on the rock, like Jesus or Socrates did.

Why don't we ever see birds, for example, sitting around all day, stimulating their sense organs or crippling themselves—opposed to being birds, as they do; chasing each other, havin a time—sad about how they didn't fulfill xyz desire or vanity for the sake of themselves via the way mankind has manipulated its environment and organized itself? Because the extent of how much less conscious birds (nature in general) are of themselves. Could you imagine what would happen if bees stopped doing what they were made to do? In favor of what they want out of their lives? Life on Earth, yet again, would be led to be extinguished, as it did roughly six other times over the last 14 billion years. Is there anything unique that humans, as a whole, bring to the table, similar to how the species of bees do for all life on Earth?

"Your Kingdom come, your will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven." - Matt 6:9

A day, even millenniums from now, where violence, at the very least, is considered a laughable part of our past as the idea of a King is to us now for example; not by supernatural means, but seen in the sense of Tolstoy's personal, social, and divine conceptions of life: https://lemmy.world/post/23133528. Through a painfully slow millenniums long transitioning into it. Without humans, life on Earth continues as it did for the last 14 billion years, with no great potential for anything to act upon itself or everything else: selfishness or selflessness (morality) upon an environment. This is what makes more conscious, capable beings—on any planet, unique: It's capacity for morality (selfishness and selflessness) in contrast. But what if these beings begin to do the opposite of what they were designed for? As salt is useless without its taste, so would humans—from the point of view of a God(s) or creator(s) of some kind, even from an atheists point of view—be useless without its purpose: selflessness, to even and especially, the most extreme degrees. Opposed to incessantly choosing itself all throughout its life as—out of inherency—a more conscious monkey would (selfishness); and when the storm of death begins to slowly creep toward the shore of your conscience, where will you have built your house (your life)? Out on the sand? As most people would be inherently drawn to? "And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” - Matt 7:27

The Golden Rule

"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction [selfishness], and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life [selflessness], and those who find it are few." - Matt 7:13

Beautiful words from a famous song performed by an equally famous singer from Georgia. But perhaps my years are not wealth, but a heavy burden weighing me down with the ailments of old age or heavy thoughts. The question is not simple. On one hand, it seems wonderful that I have lived to be 80 years old. After all, not many reach such an age, and perhaps I should rejoice in having lived to what is called an advanced age. Yes, logically, I should be happy, but unfortunately, there is little joy at this age. It feels as though I am sitting in a death row cell, waiting for either an angel or a devil to come for me, depending on where I will be dragged—to heaven or hell. Well, I have little hope for heaven. I was raised by our socialist system as an atheist and spent my whole life fighting against the "opium of the people," that is, religion. So, there is no hope for heaven. And I don’t want to go to hell. The best scenario would be if there is nothing there. These not-so-joyful thoughts constantly creep into my mind. Hence the gloomy moods, the irritability, and the depression. Unfortunately, the younger generation does not always take into account the emotional state of the older generation and does not understand the seemingly causeless irritability of the elderly. In self-criticism, I must say that we, too, when we were young, did not fully understand the emotional state of the older generation.

But still, not everything is so bad in old age. There are joys unique to the older generation. We rejoice when our children are doing well. We rejoice at the arrival of grandchildren and great-grandchildren. After all, in each of them, there is a piece of grandparents, great-grandparents. Perhaps this is our immortality. We leave, but we remain in our continuation—in our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Perhaps this is the main essence of our lives: to continue ourselves in our descendants.

Yes, it is a great joy to live to see great-grandchildren and to feel relatively well at the same time. I say "relatively" because at this age, it is impossible not to have some ailments. But for now, I can walk on my own and take care of myself. This is also very important. Much has changed during my time on this earth. I remember when a car appeared on our street, we children would run after it, shouting, "A car! A car!" For us, a car was a kind of wonder. In 1937, the first elections to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR took place. As part of the propaganda campaign, small planes, so-called "corn planes," flew over the city and dropped leaflets urging people to participate in the elections. After that, whenever a plane flew over us, we children would shout for it to drop papers. How far away all that seems now! Much has remained in my memory, but much has also faded.

I remember June 22, 1941, very well. I was 11 years old. I was at my aunt's place near Tbilisi, in a village. I saw everyone running to the center of the settlement where a loudspeaker was hanging. Back then, homes and apartments were not equipped with radios, so loudspeakers were installed in populated areas. I ran there too. I saw people standing with their heads bowed, listening to the radio in complete silence. The announcer was broadcasting Molotov's speech about the treacherous attack of Nazi Germany on the Soviet Union. This happened around noon. The day was bright and sunny. On the square stood men and women, and there was complete silence. A heavy, anxious silence. What left a deep impression on me was not Molotov's speech but this oppressive, crushing silence in the square where several hundred people stood. This terrible silence told me that something had happened that truly threatened us all with death.

From that heavy day, my life changed radically, and for the worse. The struggle for survival began. Even before the war, we lived quite poorly. My mother was a cleaner at a school, and my father was a chimney sweep who also enjoyed Georgian wine a bit too much. There were four of us children. The room we lived in, if you could call it a room, was 12 square meters. All the conveniences and inconveniences were outside. My brother and I slept on the floor, under the table—there was no other space. And despite this poverty, I remember the pre-war years as somehow bright and warm. Perhaps those were the best years of my life. Before the war, food started appearing in stores. Most importantly, there was enough bread. And for us, bread was the main dish. I didn’t think much about how poor we were because I had never known any other life. Everyone lived at about the same level as we did. Some were a little better off, some a little worse. There were no particularly rich people on our street. There was a German family living in the neighboring yard who had a piano—they were considered rich in our eyes. Or if someone had a gramophone, they were also considered rich. There was no one to envy. Perhaps that’s why relationships between people before the war were friendly. There were no locks on the doors. People shared their last piece of bread with each other. In the evenings, all the residents of our courtyard would gather under the mulberry tree and talk about various topics. Often, they discussed whether there would be a war with Germany. Someone would bring a fresh newspaper, and I was asked to read it aloud. So, this is where my political work began. And all this calm, peaceful life disappeared in an instant. WAR.

In the fall, my father was drafted to the front. There were four of us children: 13, 11, and two 3-year-olds, and we all wanted to eat. How we survived these difficult war years and the post-war years, I write about in more detail in my memoirs. Here, I just want to ask myself: were these years my wealth? No. God forbid anyone such wealth. For Kikabidze, of course, the years of his childhood and adolescence were wealth. He did not have to live through the war years. And it’s somehow offensive that the theme of "children of war," what they had to endure—not just in the Leningrad blockade, which undoubtedly deserves special attention—has not been fully addressed. But this issue needs to be raised in general. What did the children of war in the Soviet Union have to endure? How "wealthy" were their childhood years! Back then, the country did everything it could to support the front. The question of our existence as a people, as a country, was at stake. That’s why we lived by the law: "Everything for the front, everything for victory." We had no childhood, no youth. It’s hard to consider these years our wealth. But that’s not all. When we reached retirement age and thought we were entering a well-deserved rest, with a happy old age ahead, life turned 180 degrees, and those who were nobody became everything. We, who built factories, cities, and defended the country, became nobodies. And they threw us a beggarly pension, like throwing a dog a bare bone. There’s no room for wealth here. So, our years, which were impoverished in childhood, turned out to be even more impoverished in old age. So, unfortunately, it doesn’t work out: my years, my wealth.

To be Continued

Hoping to provoke some discussion with this. If we were sentient beings created inside of an advanced computer simulation, would we ever be able to tell? What signs do you think we’d see? And…do you think we are?

The Basis of Things

"Vanity of vanities; all is vanity." – Solomon (Vanity: excessive pride in or admiration of one's own appearance or achievements)

"Morality is the basis of things, and truth is the substance of all morality." – Gandhi (Selflessness and Selfishness are at the basis of things, and our present reality is the consequence of all mankinds acting upon this great potential for selflessness and selfishness all throughout the millenniums; the extent we've organized ourselves and manipulated our environment thats led to our present as we know it)

If vanity, bred from morality (selflessness and selfishness), is the foundation of human behavior, then what underpins morality itself? Here's a proposed chain of things:

Vanity\Morality\Desire\Influence\Knowledge\Reason\Imagination\Conciousness\Sense Organs+Present Environment

• Morality is rooted in desire,
• Desire stems from influence,
• Influence arises from knowledge,
• Knowledge is bred from reason,
• Reason is made possible by our imagination,
• And our imagination depends on the extent of how conscious we are of ourselves and everything else via our sense organs reacting to our present environment. (There's a place for Spirit here but haven't decided where exactly; defined objectively however: "the nonphysical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.")

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” - Albert Einstein

The more open-minded we are to outside influences, the richer and more detailed our imagination becomes. Love plays a key role here—it influences our reasoning, compassion, and empathy. A loving mind is more willing to consider new perspectives (e.g., a divorcé changing your father's identity after finding a new partner). This openness enhances our ability to imagine ourselves in someone else’s shoes and understand their experiences.

"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." - Matt 7:12

Instinct vs. Reason: A Choice Between Barbarism and Logic

When someone strikes us, retaliating appeals to their primal instincts—the "barbaric mammal" within us. But choosing not to strike back—offering the other cheek instead—engages their higher reasoning and self-control. This choice reflects the logical, compassionate side of humanity.

Observing Humanity's Unique Potential

If we observe humanity objectively, we see beings capable of imagining and acting on selflessness to an extraordinary degree—far beyond any other known species. Whether or not one believes in God, this capacity for selflessness is unique and profound.

What if we stopped separating our knowledge of morality (traditionally associated with religion) from observation (associated with science)? What if we viewed morality through the lens of observation alone? Religion often presents morality in terms of divine influence or an afterlife, but this framing can alienate people. By failing to make these ideas credible or relatable enough, religion risks stigmatizing concepts like selflessness or even belief in a higher power.

The Potential for Good Amidst Evil

Humanity has always had the potential for immense good because of its unique ability to perceive and act upon good and evil, to the extent it can in contrast. Even after centuries of selfishness or suffering, this potential remains—just as humans once dreamed of flying or creating democracy before achieving them.

As Martin Luther King Jr. said: "We can't beat out all the hate in the world with more hate; only love has that ability." Love—and by extension selflessness—is humanity's greatest strength.

"They may torture my body, break my bones, even kill me. Then, they will have my dead body; not my obedience!" - Gandhi

"Respect was invented, to cover the empty place, where love should be." – Leo Tolstoy

"You are the light of the world." "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." - Jesus, Matt 5:14, 48

"The hardest to love, are the ones that need it the most." – Socrates

In summary, humanity's capacity for selflessness is unparalleled. By combining observation with moral reasoning—and grounding it in love—we can unlock our greatest potential for good.

(Credit for this top shelf write-up of my original goes to user TG here on Lemmy.)

Suffering\Hate\Anger\Fear\Selfishness\Conciousness

What would be the remedy of fear, and the selfishness that creates it? Knowledge. "When you can understand things, you can forgive things." - Leo Tolstoy

The first of only three maxims inscribed at the Temple of Apollo, where the Oracle of Delphi resided in Ancient Greece: "Know Thyself."

The more we understand ourselves the better we can understand everyone else; an example of how to go about this would be by asking yourself the question: "what is it exactly that leads me into behaving the way I do in any way?" And following it up with being brutally honest with yourself, then begin seeking the origins of why you become sad or angry, desire xyz, or behave and think in any way, etc.

This is where the knowledge of what's captioned as The Golden Rule and considered the Law and the Prophets that were meant to be fulfilled comes in: “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." - Matt 7:12. This knowledge instills into a conscious mind an ability unique to humans: empathy, by asking the simple question: "If i were them, would I want it done to me?" And all its variations of asking the question, regarding any situation whatsoever. It's by imagining yourself in someones shoes specifically, and going about this in one's mind but not only for a moment, but by giving it an extended analysis, trying to gather by considering the most amount of potential variables while doing so; this helps an individual to best understand the behaviors of all the other individuals surrounding them, especially when contrasting it with the knowledge we've found in a deeper understanding of ourselves. And when we can understand things, we can forgive and shed the hate or fear of things.

This precept also instills a standard into a conscious mind as to how to decide what exactly is good or evil, love or hate, right or wrong, regarding any situation, any circumstance, whatsoever.

Sin (selfishness) is bred from a lack of knowledge

All hate, evil, iniquity, debauchery and selfishness to any degree can be categorized as a lack of the knowledge—an ignorance, to the true value and potential of selflessness and virtue; lack of knowledge being a consequence of any amount of knowledge at all in the first place. This is what inspired people like Jesus (in my opinion, considering the "sign" (story) of Jonah) and Socrates (debatably, the founding father of philosophy) to begin teaching strangers around their communities, because they knew that it's a knowledge that needs to be gained, thus, taught, to the point where they even gave their lives dying martyrs to their deeds and what they had to say; and the knowledge that the fear that would've otherwise have stopped them from even teaching anything at all, would be a selfishness, i.e., an evil.

This is what warrants hate, evil, and selfishness to any degree infinite forgiveness, and why it's so important to teach it the error of its ways, through love. Whether through meeting what you would consider as hate when you're met with it, with love, or exemplifying it via selfless actions. Because some people don't even have the ability to "tell their left hand from their right" (Jonah 4:11), but we can use the influence of an Earth (the influence of our peers and what a collection of people are presently sharing in—society, driving cars, holding the door open for strangers, etc) to teach the more difficult to do so; if everyone were sharing in selflessness and virtue, wouldn't it be seen as typical as driving a car is today? Therefore, nowhere near the chore it would be seen as otherwise, considering everyone would be participating in it, and the extent we've organized ourselves around it. And what does a cat begin to do—despite its, what we call "instinct"—when raised amongst dogs? Pant. We are what we've been surrounded with, like racists, they just don't know any better, being absent the other side of it especially. And love (selflessness) is the greatest teacher, it renders the ears and the mind of a conscious, capable being—on any planet, to be the most open-minded, thus, the most willing to truly consider foreign influences. It's this that governs the extent of one's imagination, and it's imagination that governs the extent of one's ability to imagine themselves in someone else's shoes—to empathize, thus, to love.

"We can't beat out all the hate in the world, with more hate; only love has that ability." - Martin Luther King Jr.

Some of the, what I consider of course, philosophy and logic found within religion:

Oaths

33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you can not make one hair white or black. 37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil."

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=ESV

We can't even change a speck of our hair from black to white (our hair turning from a dark shade, to white ultimately); anything more than 'yes' or 'no' we've ever said regarding the influence of the idea of a Heaven—God(s) or an Afterlife, and the influence of an Earth—humans, our peers, contemporaries, family, friends, and the wieght their influence has upon us (hence racism), only comes from a worry, a need, desire, or fear for ourselves: a selfishness; it would only be "blind men leading other blind men." This would, of course, include questions like: "what does this God(s) or Afterlife truly consist of, and what does it mean for me, and/or my contemporaries?" Or: "what is absolutely true?" The peace we find in taking oaths to the man made answers we find to these questions only comes from evil: a worry, need, fear or desire for ourselves—a selfishness. I believe in an unimaginable God(s) or creator(s) of some kind, just for context, but I agree with Jesus that anything more then this would only come from selfishness in some way. I rest my head on the precepts of Leo Tolstoy's completely objective interpretation of The Sermon On The Mount (linked above, chapters 5-7), and it alone in becoming a kind of constitution for our conscience so to speak—for our hearts, as a species.

Oath-taking—considering things as infallibly or as unquestionably true; "the absolute truth"—leads us into things like racism, slander, misinformation, hate between one portion of people and another, war between nations, not being united in selflessness—divided 40k different ways in its regard, not to mention all the other man made things being held as unquestionably true; potentially defiling ones mind into thinking just about anything, like Paul, convinced persecuting early followers of Jesus' teaching was right, true and just beyond any shadow of a doubt—due to the oaths he's taken, both either figuratively and literally to either himself, or anything else; throwing the supposed Messiah (not to mention anyone at all in the first place) up on a cross; to be convinced what the Pharisees have to say is as true as what the Pastors or Fathers of today have to say, especially regarding the influences of the idea of a Heaven—a God and an Afterlife.

The third maxim inscribed at the Temple of Apollo, where the Oracle of Delphi resided in Ancient Greece: "Give a pledge and trouble is at hand." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphic_maxims

Oath-taking, so to speak, only holds the potential to divide us—in fact, it's exactly this that invites heresy into the world at all in the first place—(40k different ways, apparently, yes there's roughly that many sects of Christianity) and even leads us into iniquity to any degree; iniquity defined by the precept captioned The Golden Rule and even described as "the Law and the Prophets" that were meant to be fulfilled: “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." - Matt 7:12

We can't even change a speck of our hair from black to white, so why even bother only setting the stage for the evil of either today or tomorrow to take advantage of those influences? And only stigmatize our capacity for selflessness not only individually, but especially collectively as a species by claiming our or anyones more than 'yes' or 'no' regarding those influences is absolutely true beyond any doubt; when the question comes from evil and is an irrelevance to begin with, and only the substance of our more than 'yes' or 'no' really matters, ultimately, which can be sumed up simply as: selflessness, to even and especially, the most extreme degrees. Why bother taking an oath in any way regarding the influences stated? Considering the extent we can't even guarantee anything in life; what is it that causes this principle to fall short when considering what exactly the idea of an Afterlife consists of? And a God(s) or creator(s) of some kind? We can't even change a speck of our hair from black to white, so why bother taking oaths to things completely beyond our ability and comprehension? Like toiling over trying to guarantee exactly what our future will be or what exactly an Afterlife, God(s) or creator(s) of some kind consists of? Wouldn't the substance then therefore of something we can absolutely comprehend: love (selflessness), and our ability to reason and logic that serves as its basis, be significantly more important then anymore then our yes's and no's regarding the influences of a Heaven (God and an Afterlife) and an Earth (our contemporaries) that have only proven to divide us more then unify? To hate and kill each other over even.

It's the opposite of oath-taking, and a close mind that's led to Christianity at all in the first place; how ironic the extent it presently advocates the very kind of oaths and close-minded state of mind that would've led to it never being considered to begin with, and Jesus himself not being able to see past the fear for himself that was inculcated into him by the dogma of his day, to see past what was presently being held as infallible, to find the truth that's been smothered by it, becoming yet another Pharisee himself otherwise. Jesus, with an open mind, and seeing the dogma of the day as questionably true, opposed to unquestionably true—like how most sects of Christianity consider their interpretations presently—like the Pharisees would and even teach others to do the same, was able to find the truth that wasn't The Nicene Creed (in my opinion, obviously), but our capacity for love as a species, and the knowledge of the relevance and potential of returning any degree of it, for evil done; to potentially reach a day where violence, at the very least, is considered a laughable part of our past like the idea of a King is to us now, or not being able to fly around in airplanes; to potentially even cure the world of at the very least the majority of hate, evil, and division within it, but especially to lead us away from this life of hell we ultimately dig for ourselves when we—out of instinct and taking oaths—build our house (our life) on the sand, and make life about squeezing out as much as possible from it for the sake of oneself (selfishness), like most people; and to instead take the path that's more difficult, and inherently less attractive: a life of selflessness, and build your house (your life) up on the rock, becoming a son or daughter of "our Father" yourself; a "Son of Man." People like Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jonah, Socrates, Jesus, Gandhi. Men that gave up their personal welfare and a life of themselves to toil, suffer and even give their lives for teaching and exemplifying—influencing men to be good for any reason (peacemaking), leading them out of iniquity, selfishness and this hell on Earth we're inherently drawn to, being mammals and abscent this knowledge; their names given new life after death, via our unique ability to transfer knowledge, living on for eternity or at least for a time, inspiring men out of a life of iniquity, ultimately becoming a prisoner to their mind, or to men otherwise.

The Golden Rule

"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." - Matt 7:13

"Satisfaction of one's will is not necessary for true life. Temporal, mortal life is the food of the true life—it is the material for a life of reason. And therefore the true life is outside of time, it exists only in the present. Time is an illusion to life: the life of the past or the future hides the true life of the present from people. And therefore man should strive to destroy the deception of the temporal life of the past and future. The true life is not just life outside of time—the present—but it is also a life outside of the individual. Life is common to all people and expresses itself in love. And therefore, the person who lives in the present, in the common life of all people, unites himself with the father—with the source and foundation of life." - Leo Tolstoy, The Gospel In Brief

Time being a consequence of conciousness; the way we inherently are able to perceive the past and future, and organize it the way we did. Our imaginations being another consequence of being able to be as concious as we are to our surroundings, as well as ourselves—however, too much time spent in our heads, with no source of love to keep us in the present, can also become our undoing.

A life of selflessness offers anyone of any belief a life most lived in the present, opposed to becoming a prisoner of our minds, stuck in our heads, the illusions or images of our past and future bred from our inherent worry, need, or fear for ourselves (selfishness), governing how we feel today. This is what a life of things like selfishness, self-obsession, and self-indulgence have to offer, and that Jesus warned us of; one where there's no one around anymore to keep you out of your head, so in your head you remain. And if you don’t become a prisoner of your mind by making yourself the emphasis throughout your life, than a prisoner to men you ultimately become, labeled one amoungst the sea of what we presently consider—based off our still more blind standards: "the worst of the world."

Jesus did save us, but from ourselves, by warning us with a knowledge; not from a literal hell that men only a few centuries later invented, but from a hell we potentially make for ourselves in this life. To warn us that our inherency of building our house (our life) on the sand—like most people, shaping and making our life about all that we can squeeze out of it for ourselves, is exactly what leads us to this hell. When it's building our house (our life) on the rock, squeezing out as much as we can for the sake of others, this is the life that leads us away from this life of hell we all become convinced is right, true and just beyond any doubt. It's in the incessant participation, and our inherency to organize ourselves around the idea of quid pro quo: "something for something" (eye for an eye), opposed to "something for nothing" that leads us to the death of this "true life."

“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." - Matt 7:13 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7&version=ESV

The Woes of Taking Oath

The influences that lead us most away from this "true life" most lived in the present are taking oaths, so to speak, to the influences of a "Heaven"—the more than 'yes' or 'no' we've said and proclaimed as unquestionably true regarding the ideas of a God and an Afterlife; and the influence of an Earth: people, our contemporaries, our peers, our loved ones, our families, and what their presently sharing in—slavery, slander, considering vengeance or revenge as justice, and iniquity in general. It's in convincing ourselves that all what these other people have to say about anything (especially regarding a God and an Afterlife) is so right, true and just that it leads us to become so sure of its infallibility that the thought of re-examaning it is the last thing on our minds—it's not even on our minds at all. It's in doing this that leads us into war between nations, racism, victims of slander and collective hate, divison to any degree, divided 40k different ways in selflessness (yes there's roughly that many sects of Christianity) and so on. Consider everything and anything as true as you'd like, but not to the point where it's no longer up for questioning or a re-examination, otherwise leading you into iniquity to any degree; iniquity based off the standards set by the precepts of an objective—more philosophically profound—interpretation of the Sermon On The Mount (chapters 5-7): https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5-7&version=ESV Debately the most publicized point of his ministry, thus the most accurate.

"Do not take an oath at all." - Matt 5:34

Cross-posted from "Epicurean" by @[email protected] in [email protected]

Source

More seriously though, nowadays when people call themselves Epicurean, they mean just the life philosophy stuff, not the physics stuff :D

That should be the biggest argument against the rise of tech bro neo feudalism. Feudalism only has a hierarchy of lesser and greater lords that hold a right to ownership of any kind and have a licence to exploit the peasantry, and everyone else is a serf of no relevance or rights of autonomy or ownership.

The only way feudalism can possibly play out is empoverishment of the masses in the long term.

Leo Tolstoy suffered over the same question: "I am a man, how should I live? What do I do?" His non-fiction on the very topic contains the very simple answer, thats been right there under our noses all along: love (selflessness), but it's become easy to miss due to its disguise of spiritual/supernatural this or that and incessant answers to the ideas of a God and an Afterlife—opposed to the value and capacity of our inherency to selflessness—being held as unquestionably true via these influences, only blinding the masses of the truth that's hidden underneath all the dogma.

https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/06/03/tolstoy-confession/

His non-fiction he wrote on his long quest for truth: Confession, What I Believe, The Gospel in Brief, and The Kingdom of God is Within You.

Some translations can be a bit of a chore to read, therefore I humbly suggest the ones linked below:

Confession: https://www.amazon.com/Death-Ivan-Ilyich-Confession/dp/0871402998

What I Believe: https://www.amazon.com/My-Religion-What-I-believe/dp/B0863TFZRN

The Gospel In Brief: https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Brief-Harper-Perennial-Thought/dp/006199345X

The Kingdom Of God Is Within You: https://www.walmart.com/ip/The-Kingdom-of-God-Is-Within-You-Warbler-Classics-Annotated-Edition-Paperback-9781962572439/5323130468?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=0&wmlspartner=wlpa&cn=FY25-ENTP-PMAX_cnv_dps_dsn_dis_ad_entp_e_n&gclsrc=aw.ds&adid=222222222985323130468_0000000000_21835691471&wl0=&wl1=x&wl2=m&wl3=&wl4=&wl5=9019109&wl6=&wl7=&wl8=&wl9=pla&wl10=8175035&wl11=online&wl12=5323130468&veh=sem&gad_source=1

The Basis of Things

"Vanity of vanities; all is vanity." – Solomon (Vanity: excessive pride in or admiration of one's own appearance or achievements)

"Morality is the basis of things, and truth is the substance of all morality." – Gandhi (Selflessness and selfishness are at the basis of things, and our present reality is the consequence of all mankinds acting upon this great potential for selflessness and selfishness all throughout the millenniums; the extent we've organized ourselves and manipulated our environment thats led to our present as we know it)

If vanity, bred from morality (selflessness and selfishness), is the foundation of human behavior, then what underpins morality itself? Here's a proposed chain of things:

Vanity\Morality\Desire\Influence\Knowledge\Reason\Imagination\Conciousness\Sense Organs+Present Environment

• Morality is rooted in desire,
• Desire stems from influence,
• Influence arises from knowledge,
• Knowledge is bred from reason,
• Reason is made possible by our imagination,
• And our imagination depends on the extent of how conscious we are of ourselves and everything else via our sense organs reacting to our present environment. (There's a place for Spirit here but haven't decided where exactly; defined objectively however: "the nonphysical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.")

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” - Albert Einstein

The more open ones mind is to foreign influences, the more bigger and detailed its imagination can potentially become. It's loves influence on our ability to reason that governs the extent of our compassion and empathy, because it's love that leads a conscious mind most willing to consider anything new (your parents divorcing and upon dating someone new your dad goes from cowboy boots only to flip flops for example). Thus, the extent of its ability—even willingness to imagine the most amount of potential variables when imagining themselves as someone else, and of how detailed it is. This is what not only makes knowledge in general so important, but especially the knowledge of selflessness and virtue—of morality. Because like a muscle, our imagination needs to be exercised by practicing using it.

"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." - Matt 7:12

When someone strikes us, retaliating appeals to their primal instincts—the "barbaric mammal" within us. But choosing not to strike back—offering the other cheek instead—engages their higher reasoning and self-control. This choice reflects the logical, compassionate side of humanity.

Observing Humanity's Unique Potential

What would be the "skin" we use to hold the wine of the knowledge of everything we've ever presently known as a species? Observation. If we look at our world around us, we can plainly see a collection of capable, concious beings on a planet, presently holding the most potential to not only imagine selflessness to the extent we can, but act upon this imagining, and the extent we can apply it to our environment, in contrast to anything—as far as we know—that's ever existed; God or not.

What would happen if the wine of our knowledge of morality was no longer kept separate from the skin we use to hold our knowledge of everything else: observation, and poured purely from the perspective of this skin? Opposed to poured into the one that it's always been poured into, and that kept it separate at all in the first place: a religion. There's so much logic within religion that's not being seen as such because of the appearance it's given when it's taught and advocated, being an entire concept on what exactly life is, and what the influences of a God or afterlife consist of exactly, our failure to make them credible enough only potentially drawing people away from the value of the extremes of our sense of selflessness—even the relevance of the idea of a God(s) or creator(s) of some kind; only stigmatizing it in some way or another in the process.

There's a long-standing potential within any consciously capable being—on any planet, a potential for the most possible good, considering its unique ability of perceiving anything good or evil in the first place. It may take centuries upon centuries of even the most wretched of evils and collective selfishness, but the potential for the greatest good and of collective selflessness will always have been there. Like how men of previous centuries would only dream of humans flying in the air, or the idea of democracy.

As Martin Luther King Jr. said: "We can't beat out all the hate in the world with more hate; only love has that ability." Love—and by extension selflessness—is humanity's greatest strength.

"They may torture my body, break my bones, even kill me. Then, they will have my dead body; not my obedience!" - Gandhi

"Respect was invented, to cover the empty place, where love should be." - Leo Tolstoy

"You are the light of the world." "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." - Jesus, Matt 5:14, 48

"The hardest to love, are the ones that need it the most." - Socrates

In summary, humanity's potential for selflessness is unparalleled. By combining observation with moral reasoning—and grounding it in love—we can unlock our greatest capacity for good.