god i think one day i'll just forget how to talk at all

no it is really common

oh god

I woke up this morning thinking, 'what is all this fog in my head...it's going to get worse isn't it..."

i'm even coming up with extraterrestrial

but not the word

i have days like that

I am genuinely dim witted.

if the fog still stands after the breakfast and a coffee, i try to manipulate my mind

that's what a third party observer of this conversation would say, about both of us

"fucking retards lel"

Anyway, tell me more about pantheism. I don't quite understand. Do I have to read Spinoza?

For me the alternative to Absurdism was really clear and obvious. Now I am curious how you go to your conclusion.

spinoza's religious doctrines are more about a criticism on descartes' views, but can give you an insight

i suppose you're already familiar with hegelian absolute

Familiar, by no means a scholar.

hegel emphasises on the connection between *things*, which will be important from where you stand

the connection that initially arises due to things *existing*

Yep, good so far.

and i suppose all the far eastern teachings that will tell you to be a good person and kill your ego won't do any good? that you would rather skip all that shit?

i mean it as it's mostly the far asian philosophy, they actually talk a little about the truth about the matter

Good question. I think the 'spiritual life' is deficient. It can be psychological tool to end suffering in one person, yourself, and presumably try to reduce it in others. However, the whole task has not been very successful. The inward looking Tibet, for example, have been pretty BTFO by atheist Chinese. I am suspect of all mystical claims, it's a kind of reverse-materialism. Now I see this might be a false dichotomy.

Then again, meaning precedes all practical considerations, or at least all consideration are structured around meaningfulness. Following teachings depend on their theological proximity to what you consider to be God.

For me, it seems obvious that the highest meaning is transcendent, and both immanent.

Since an object and its meaning are not inherent.

from where do you structure your moral values? not that strictly as your moral 'codes' but what makes you say that "killing a person is bad"? kant, ten commandments, law?

my brain is starting to decline me, i hope that sentence is understandable to you

haha

It is. Well, once you recognise God, then religion must follow since activity follows meaning. Maybe God doesn't need you to do anything. I'm still unclear of this point, only recently coming from an amoral viewpoint.

so your reasoning that you don't need any reasoning behind the morals because god is obviously smarter/wiser than you to know what's right and what's wrong and that makes you believe in them?

It's pretty organic, I would think. Indeed, my reasoning is obsolete.

i mean, considering you are applying rational thinking to morals too, like everything

you might as well not, i am no one to judge that

I guess my idea is amorality + God's commands.

And different groups compete to prove what those are.

amorality is the stance everyone initially has, only the values shape the moral structure of people, think of a tribe in amazons that are sacrificing and cannibalizing people for their god and compare it to your or any westerner's morals

with "killing a person is bad"

Pretty much. However that mote of worship no longer exists.

this is what makes kant wrong

it might not exist

i can just build a religion like that