Think SIMPLY!

Why was the cosmos created? Without reason. Isn't that illogical?

What/ who created the cosmos? Nothing. Isn't that unscientific?
Can the material explain the immaterial? But matter is just a product of the mind!
Can the body die and the mind live? But there is no body!

You are thinking too much. And this is not always a good thing.
The illogical could have a simple illogical solution.
Search inside you in order to find it.

The cosmos exists. Why shouldn't it?
The cosmos exists as you experience it. Why not?
The cosmos was created by someone/ something. Could it be any other way?

We can understand the cosmos.
How can we if we are not similar to the one who created it?
Why was the cosmos created? Because God wanted us to participate in His joy…
Isn't that logical? Isn't that why you have children? Because you love them before you even have them?

You believe in logic. But was it logic which helped you choose your wife?
No matter how bad the world is, you will live for ever if you are a good person.
It sounds illogical. And simple. Why don't you believe it?
Could love and spirit ever die?

These are not objects (αντι-κείμενα) around you.
They are things (πράγματα < πραγματώνω).
These are not other people around you.
It is you.
There is only one God.
And we are all made in His image.
You cannot die because He is everywhere.
Accept the present.
Accept your body.
Who tells you it ends up at your skin?
Christ was resurrected with it.
Matter is not inferior or superior.
Everything is blessed.
I am still in Kythera. [Harmonia Philosophica]
Tips of the waves, based on a common sea. [Schrödinger]
Religion is based on empiricism.
You live your experience with God.

Stop thinking.
Stop analyzing things. [Science: One -> Many]

Just love.
Συγ-χώρα. [Religion: Many -> One]
Empty your mind.
Leave space to be filled with the cosmos.

Sit by the beach for a coffee.
Spend time with your loved ones.
Those moments, are Paradise.
Eternal life is here.
Here and now.
And they will be "here" and "now" for ever.
Take a time machine and you will be "there" to see it!

Be.

Eternal life is HERE and NOW as Christ said.

For ever...

[written on 09/2014]

Christ did not exist! Do you still believe?

There was a lot of discussion recently on Greek Facebook about a famous and popular priest who decided to stop being a priest. A choice that divided and provoked either positive or negative comments. I will not dwell on this discussion and on whether a priest who does such a thing is doing the right thing or not. Instinctively, I believe that such an act involves more the element of cowardice, as a friend of mine mentioned, than an element that could arouse admiration. Anyway, I did not know the man so my judgment is superfluous and may also be wrong.

This small event though made me think about another much more important issue: What effect does the fall of a person who is nothing more than an idol have on the people who followed him and believed in him as their guide in life? It may sound funny, but many people are looking for such guidance. Many times I have heard people talk about a priest in terms like "He is good, come and listen to him" or "He is an enlightened man" etc. What do the same people say when this priest gives up? Does their system collapse? Do they just... go to the next priest available? And regardless of that, the views these people had and which they based on their... previous idol, have they remained intact? If so, what role did this idol play in their lives? If not, then what role did these views play in these people's lives?

These questions may seem funny or a little serious - especially to those who follow such idols - but they can be made even more serious by choosing another example: Christ.

Many Christians say they believe because they believe in Christ. What does this really mean? That their faith is based on His Resurrection, which they have believed beyond any doubt? So if they somehow go back in time and discover (hypothetically speaking) that the Resurrection was a complicated lie, then they would cease to be Christians? Or that if Christ suddenly started saying nonsense (again, hypothetically speaking), would they follow that nonsense literally because He says it? What does it mean to have a faith based on your faith in someone, even if that person is God?

To me, a lot of faith is a sign of little faith.
To yourself.

If you believe in the teaching which says "Love each other" (Gr. Αγαπάτε αλλήλους) you should do it not because someone else said it, but because you heard it, processed it and decided that you agree with it and incorporated it into your life. And the interesting thing is that if you did all of the above, it no longer matters who you heard it from or who said it! The seed that Christ sowed, if it eventually sprouts, belongs to each one of us. It no longer belongs to Christ, in the sense that a fool who follows someone else 'belongs' to the latter without mind and knowledge. If you believe in the teachings of Christ, then it does not matter if He even existed! Let alone if He was crucified, if He did what they say he did, etc. Because now this love is your own and you are now its self-luminous bearer. By your choice. And even if you took a time machine to go back in time and see that Christ did not even exist (the permanent dream of all hardcore atheists), your Christian values ​​will not and should not be affected. If that happened then we would all be in big trouble and these values would not be actual values to be honest.

So let's leave all the fake idols.
Let's stop following them.
Let us ask ourselves simply and honestly.

Would we follow... us?

On the other hand, I may just say nonsense.
Who told you to follow me?

You would also crucify Him...

Nowadays, all Christians are so … Christians that they don’t even think about the obvious.

That if we lived in a time when Christ appeared, we would crucify Him too.

Think. A dirty beggar without a second cloth to wear, coming to you to tell you to forget all your beliefs and abandon anything holy you hold in respect to follow him.

If you wouldn’t crucify Him with your vote, you would definitely crucify Him with your tolerance. And you would laugh as he ascended Golgotha. That is, if you happened to pass by and you hadn’t gone for coffee. And you would definitely change the channel at night if the news happened to mention the event, because at the same time Masterchef would start or you would have to write a very Christian post on Facebook.

Accept your fall.

It is the first step to rise.

Philosophy Wire: Bread before agriculture…

At an archaeological site in northeastern Jordan, researchers have discovered the charred remains of a flatbread baked by hunter-gatherers 14,400 years ago. It is the oldest direct evidence of bread found to date, predating the advent of agriculture by at least 4,000 years. The findings suggest that bread production based on wild cereals may have encouraged hunter-gatherers to cultivate cereals, and thus contributed to the agricultural revolution in the Neolithic period. [1] Having bread before agriculture. Having knowledge before experience. Having wisdom before knowledge. Every time the result is preceding the cause. Don’t you see? You have everything backwards… Eat that bread… Thank the Lord… He has already provided… And you have already eaten…

(c) Philosophy WIRES - Commenting world news from philosophy's perspective…

Philosophy Wire: Christ coming again. Now. Tomorrow. Every day. Literally.

Philosophy Wire by Spiros Kakos [2017-08-15]: Christ came to Earth 2,000 years ago. He said he would come again. Some wait for that to happen. Others laugh at a promise that they see it will not be fulfilled. But could it be that this is already happening? Christ was a pariah. A homeless person. A dirty person. Without clothes. Without food. Without property. And he has warned us that every time we see such a person and pass him by, we pass by Him. Imagine you lived at the time of Christ. Would you listen to a homeless person? Or would you pass by him with no second thought? The past has not passed. We live it every moment. Pass by the homeless person. Without looking. Christ came to Earth 2,000 years ago. And he will not come again… Or maybe…?

[written on 7/2014]

(c) Philosophy WIRES - Commenting world news from philosophy's perspective…

Philosophy Wire: Ad hominem arguments. The only possible way of arguing?

Philosophy Wire by Spiros Kakos [2017-04-22]:

Theory says that we should not use “Ad hominem” arguments for any discussion. It is not “proper”. It is not “right”. But why is that? Why shouldn’t you refer to the persons associated with an argument in order to say something about the argument?

Every argument has the goal to have an impact on the real world, an impact on our lives. After all, we speak our mind only in order to persuade others that we are “right”, that the others are “wrong”. That if you follow our way of thinking then something “good” will happen, as opposed to following the opposite way of thinking. So speaking about the people who are related to that specific way of thinking is totally related to the argument (this is almost a… tautology) and has a very specific value: surely it does not prove the argument right or wrong, but it surely shows how the proponents of that argument use it in their lives (thus, the power of the argument in changing our lives). Wouldn’t you want to listen to a Christian speaking about how he practices his faith in everyday life? Wouldn’t you want to listen to an atheist speaking about how he lives by his atheistic beliefs (everything is random, without purpose, we are just machines/ moving lifeless meat etc => we can do anything, there is no point in anything, there is no good/ evil, killing someone and breaking a rock are similar events etc) every day?

Wouldn’t you like to know about the unethicality of the life of Russell, who had the nerve to speak about ethics? Wouldn’t you like to know about the ethics of the life of Jesus, who has been under attack like he is the most unethical person in the human history?

Perhaps after all the ad hominem argument is the best way to argue in favor or against a specific theory. After all, what matters is the impact in real life. Give me an interesting theory and we will just have a nice discussion analyzing it. Show me how you live and you will have given me the greatest theory without giving me any theory at all…

Ad hominem then.
To the person.
Because only the person and its life matters…

(c) Philosophy WIRES - Commenting world news from philosophy's perspective…

Philosophy Wire: Yes, I am a Christian. And I do not tell you why! [Unless you insist…]

Philosophy Wire by Spiros Kakos [2015-06-25]:

Yes, I am a Christian. And I do not tell you why!

Unless…

…you tell me that Chirstianism killed a lot of people.

So I will ask you if Christ taught murder.

…you tell me that Christianism oppressed people.

So I will tell you to read how Jesus behaved to people who were outcasts in His time. And I will also ask you if you really know and understand the difference between politics, religion and religion philosophy. And if you can detect such a difference for every bad thing happens in the name of science. And if you believe Mengele represented science (even though he did in his time – see here).

…you tell me that Christianism is darkness.

So I will tell you that humanism began in Byzantium. (see here) And that everything you know about ancient Greek philosophers you so much admire, you know because a monk somewhere saves his works. And that even the ancient “free thinking” Greeks had religion. And that universities started in the “Dark” Middle Ages and Dawkins teaches in one of those “dark” places.

…you tell me that Christianism is all about faith.

So I will tell you the difference between “blind faith” and “faith based on logic and evidence”. And I will explain to you that science needs faith as well. And I would add that believing in a scientific axiom requires more faith than to believe in love like Christ taught.

…you tell me that Christianism is unscientific and irrational.

So I will tell you that it is more irrational and unscientific to believe that everything exist out of pure luck than to believe that everything has a cause. And that Aristotle (the founder of Logic) and Gödel (the second greatest logicologist after… Aristotle) believed – based on their logic – in the First Cause. And that the great so called atheist (what? Yes… Check out here) Nietzsche was an irrationalist. And that the Interacademy Panel [IAP - Global network of Science Academies] acknowledged the limitations of science (see “The Limits of Science” @ Harmonia Philosophica) and the need to coexist with religion which examines completely different questions which are out of scope for science. (see “Religion and Science philosophy” @ Harmonia Philosophica) And that most important scientists like Max Planck, Heisenberg and Collins were believers (see here).

…you tell me that consciousness/ soul stems from the brain.

So I will tell you the TV analogy and remind you that reductionism is as much “proven” as the 5th axiom of Euclid is. Adding a recommendation for some more in depth reading regarding the brain and the mind. (see “Human Consciousness and the end of Materialism” and here)

…you tell me that Christianism has stupid rituals

So I will tell you to spend some time in the analysis of the words spoken and the appreciation of the artistic beauty of the hymns sang during the John Chrysostom liturgy. And to compare it with stupid rituals with semi-naked women you so much enjoy watching.

…you tell me that Christianism is simplistic.

So I will tell you that the highest philosophy is and should be simplistic. And I would dare you to find any phrase full of philosophical meaning like “Love your enemies” is.

I love you too my atheist friend.

And I understand that your irritation stems from your deep need to believe.

Materialism is ridiculous. Arguing in favor of religion is truly easy for someone who knows the basics. Science is the new religion nowadays. But you must have free thinking is you wish to be true to yourself. Atheism is trendy nowadays. But you must resist my dear atheist friend. Christ taught love, compassion, forgiveness (Gr. Συγ-χώρεση). If you agree with all these, why so hatred against Him?

Accept logic.

Accept your thoughts.

Accept your feeling.

Only then will you be able to say “I am a Christian!”.

Without the need to tell anyone why…

(c) Philosophy WIRES - Commenting world news from philosophy's perspective…

Philosophy Wire: Written instructions. Oral deceptions. The good example.

Philosophy Wire by Spiros Kakos [2014-08-01]: People tend to believe written logos more than oral instructions. [1] But the truth is only experienced. And passed over from a person to another through example. How can you write down or convey through speech instructions for living good? The greatest master did not write down a single word...

(c) Philosophy WIRES - Commenting world news from philosophy's perspective…

Philosophy Wire: Oxytocin. Love. Therapy.

Philosophy Wire by Spiros Kakos [2014-07-25]: The “love hormone” does more than trigger labor and cement emotional ties between people. Oxytocin also helps repair damaged muscles, at least in mice. Oxytocin stimulates muscle stem cells to divide when muscle is damaged, researchers report June 10 in Nature Communications.  Experiments with mice also showed that the hormone’s levels in the animals’ blood declines with age. Giving old mice shots of oxytocin restored their muscle-regeneration capabilities to match those of much younger rodents. But extra doses of the hormone did not boost muscle-building in young mice. [1] Someone has talked about the effects of love 2,000 years ago. And he wasn't a chemist... Whom do you believe? And why? What does your mind say? What does your heart answer?

(c) Philosophy WIRES - Commenting world news from philosophy's perspective…

Philosophy Wire: People, groups, friends, ethics.

Philosophy Wire by Spiros Kakos [2014-07-24]: People in groups tend to be less moral. [1] You must be alone to be good with others. The nicest person in the world had only enemies or students, but no friends...

(c) Philosophy WIRES - Commenting world news from philosophy's perspective…

Christ, Lao, Socrates, quantum mechanics…

The great sages agreed on how we should live.

Christ spoke about living with love. He spoke about how we can feel God if we live properly. He told us not to get frustrated about life in this world - God cares for us as He cares for the sparrow. He declared that the weak and outcasts will eventually prevail. [New Testament]

Lao Tse said the same. Be yourself. Be decent but without making any special effort. Have tolerance. Follow the flow of the Universe. As the wind blows wherever and however he wants, so happiness will appear by itself whenever it wants. Be natural, let the wind take you where it wants. [Lao Tse , Tao Te Ching]

Socrates emphasized the value of knowing yourself. He did not speak with axioms, he just wanted to speak about the truth that lies within us. His greatest wisdom was that that he knew that he did not know anything. Simple and austere, he died for what he believed as Christ some years later also did. [Plato]

Jean Jacques Rousseau said it clearly: It is more important to live in virtue than studying it! [Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Science and the Arts] None of the above sages did leave any written monument (Tao left a single book at the urging of the guardian of the mountain pass where it was seen for the last time). And yet they defined the world. The Athenians may have had many philosophers, but the Spartans were the ones who lived virtuously. The importance of living a simple virtuous life instead of virtuous thinking is prevalent in each of these leading wise men. It may sound boring, but it's not at all: Live simply. Most people today, led by the dominant capitalistic Protestantism, want to "do " more and more things. But why should we "do something" at all times? [Harmonia Philosophica - see references to Feyerabend] The temporary material benefits of "doing something" cannot be compared with the happiness and completion offered by a life on the basis of "loving others and letting yourself to the care God". It is not about fatalism. It is about wisdom. Caring only for love, toleration and forgiveness is not so "easy" as many people think. To the contrary – dealing with a thousand things and trying to make money is the easy way! Those who do not want to stay by themselves even for one minute – are afraid of themselves. Those who want more money, do not have the strength or the courage to look for the really important things in life. Those who want to "do something" usually do nothing for others.

Great wise men preferred anachoritism [αναχωρητισμός] than staying to act (Socrates, Christ, Tao, Heidegger).

It takes courage to stand still for a while and listen to the One who cries out to you: "You're already here! You are already a part of me! Do not try to understand. Do not move constantly trying to forget yourself. Try to remember what you already know!" ...

As a modern quantum mechanics physicist, Lao said "Do not pollute the world with your observation and action!" Man is the border line between the perishable world of the phenomena and the eternal world of substance. And only if we can reduce our impact to zero will we make this separation disappear.

Don’t look at the skyscapers. Look at the sparrow. [Christ] Seek the empty so that you can be full. [Tao]

Human Parthenogenesis. The phantom article. Misinterpretations.

Christmas brought to me some “new” articles about one of the hot topics of the days: Parthenogenesis. After some reading and searching I was astounded to find out some sources claiming that parthenogenesis is not only possible for humans but that it has been possibly been observed too (1). (V: by the way, parthenogenesis in animals is extremely COMMON, to a point that it makes you wander: do the atheists which laugh at the birth of Christ believe that humans do not belong in the same category as the animals for which parthenogenesis phenomena are so common?)

After some deeper search, I found a number of interesting articles (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12), which all had the same central point of reference: The old “phantom” article “PARTHENOGENESIS IN HUMAN BEINGS”(by S. Balfour-Lynn, The Lancet, Volume 267, Issue 6931, pages 1071 - 1072, 30 June 1956) from the renowned scientific journal “The Lancet” (13).

This article cannot be found in the internet for free. So one has to rely on what other say about it and its content! The fact that I had to pay $40 (with taxes) to buy a 1956 article and some highly antiphatic/ contradictory reports on its conclusions piqued my curiosity. When I read what the book “The Mysteries of Human Reproduction” (by Raymond W. Bernard) (14) said, in contrast to what other sources said (for the SAME Lancet publication!) I was finally convinced: I had to buy the article to see its contents for myself!

In two sentences: The Lancet article states that parthenogenesis is almost certainly scientifically observed! All the articles claiming that the Lancet article states the opposite are simply lying. (and yes: The Lancet is RIDICULOUS to ask for $40 for a 1,5 pages article from 1956!)

In more than two sentences:

1. A scientist analyzed 19 alleged cases of human parthenogenesis.
2. The 18 of the 19 cases were rejected for various reasons.
3. One case (Mrs. Alpha) passed all the tests, which included blood, saliva, taste and skin-grafting tests. The skin-grafting tests from mother to daughter and vice versa ended up in the almost simultaneous rejection of the transplants (in 4 weeks from the daughter and in 6 weeks from the mother). This result was “by accident” misinterpreted as a negative result, even though the Lancet article does not say such a thing. And actually it is logical for two identical persons to have the same reaction! (this actually increases the probability of the case being a true case of parthenogenesis!) Claims that the skin grafts from a “same” person “must” be accepted are simply not valid, since there are numerous cases of people who rejected skin transplants from their own skin. (15) Others claim (like here) that daughter and mother are different (and, thus, we did not have parthenogenesis), since the daughter rejected the transplant earlier than her mother. But again, this is speculation NOT contained in the Lancet article and easily debatable. Are we ready to denounce a case which passed ALL the tests because of a 2 weeks difference in ONE test which ALSO was (at the end) successful?
4. The article concluded that “In such a case as this, rigorous proof is impossible, but it remains that all the evidence obtained from serological and special tests is consistent with what would be expected in a case of parthenogenesis” […] “this mother’s claim must not only be considered seriously, but it must also be admitted that we have been unable to disprove it”.

It is time for science to become more courageous so as to pursue more actively the analysis of ambiguous subjects. Hiding problems under the carpet is not good for anyone.

It is time science becomes Science again!

To all the atheists in the world: HAPPY CHRISTMAS!

Philosophy Wire: Pope, children, Christ, Nietzsche...

Philosophy Wire by Spiros Kakos [2013-11-26]: A boy stealing the show from the Pope. [1] Nietzsche and Christ called us to be children again. We insist on ignoring them… We "know" that being a "grown up" is better. And whatever kid asks us, we will simply tell him to shut up.

(c) Philosophy WIRES - Commenting world news from philosophy's perspective…

Resurrection - Illogical, thus True.

Crucifixus est Dei filius,

non pudet, quia pudentum est.

Et mortuus est Dei filius,

prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est.

Et sepultus ressurrexit,

certum est, quia impossibile est

Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus

The son of God is crucified,

this does not bring shame because it is disgraceful.

And the son of God is dead,

this is worthy of faith because it is illogical.

Kai after his burial he rose,

this is certain because it is impossible.

It is the resurrection of Christ a real event?

The answer may come from an unexpected place ...

Long ago when I was reading "The Birth of Tragedy" by Nietzsche, I realized that what some people think they know about "Nietzsche the atheist" is not valid. Nietzsche in this document refers to things that easily could be part of a... theological text. He talks about this primary One, and how the man in his Dionysian ecstasy comes in harmony with it. He analyzes his opposition to the religion of his days, which contrast is based on the fact that religion has become a religion of scholars (while Logic cannot explain the world!). He talks against science and reason which try to explain the world while seeming simply adhering to its surface.

Maybe analyzing something logically is not the solution. Maybe you should stand "irrational" in front of the problem to find a solution. Isn’t that what scientists we admire as "geniuses" do?

He rose.

Do you believe it? No.

The resurrection of a man who has died is a deeply illogical fact. It cannot happen based on what we know. But it is for this very reason that Shestov motivates us to believe it! Why should we believe the "reasonable" things? Not many true things are reasonable. Is it logical that we live for no reason at all and then we become fertilizer without any reason? Why immortality is irrational and the accidental existence is logical? Who has instilled such ideas to us?

He rose.

Do you believe it? No.

Many say they saw him resurrected. But you do not believe them. They tell you so. You refuse to listen. You  deny your own existence. An existence which cries out that you are more than a set of meat and bones. And yet you're rational. You believe that you will die. But life itself is irrational. You cannot logically find its meaning. Because it is hidden where you are not looking. Stop thinking. See with your eyes closed. They tell you. You do not hear them. You want to see. But even if you saw you would not have believed. Because you are logical. You would try to find the "trick" behind what you see. You live a life in logic. How can you become irrational now? How can you start living now?

He rose.

Do you believe it? No.

He lived and he died while being innocent. You think he did a trick. A stunt. Or even worse: you think that it was a common liar. A common liar who just got a crisis of conscience and sacrificed himself ... for fun! They tell you he resurrected. Others also wrote down their testimony to satisfy your need for modern "written sources". As you did not believe Homer, you do not believe them either. You are what you have told you to be. You hear what they have told you to listen. You are a ridiculous little man who cannot think on his own without the prior consent of his “spiritual leaders”. You would never defend with your own life something absurd that you saw happening, you would never defend your beliefs. You do not have the guts to do so. You simply follow. If “reliable sources” do not tell you so, you do not believe so. But if your “sources” tell you so, then you are ready to believe anything, no matter how absurd, without protest.

Are there parallel universes? Yes.

He rose.

Do you believe it? No.

Be unreasonable and see what eyes cannot see: Resurrection means victory over death. Don’t you see? You're not just blood and bones. You're an enlightened being. And you have no need of sources (you have) or evidence or empirical data (which you also have) to believe. You're a deeply irrational creature dropped in the world and you everyday feel anxious about who you are and where are you going. You know nothing, but know that there is meaning in all this.

We must be irrational! As irrational is life! Logic could never solve important problems (after all,  Gödel has proved that logic cannot answer everything, and cannot even help us answer simple questions like "can you demonstrate that this proposal cannot be proved?") while insight and intuition have provided solutions to many mysteries. Scientific riddles of ages have been solved with irrational thinking - not by "logic.Your logic makes you believe in "infinite". And yet you have never seen it... Irrational? Your logic makes you think that there are problems without a solution ("This proposal cannot be proved") and yet you "know" that such problems do not exist. Irrational?

We live. We are basically irrational.

Perhaps the question should be put differently.

As Rilke says, the purpose of life is to be defeated by greater things.

He died.

Do you believe it? No.