Journey as journey
One only works towards a chosen ideal of Truth (meaning, an end to suffering, nonduality, what have you) in this life; one does not know with certainty the Truth's existence. One works with varying degrees of certainty and effort towards this ideal. And so one cannot know the Truth until one has been saved by it (it is in large part not in one's control at the least), or one would possess the Truth before being saved.
In addition, an example is an individual who takes action contrary to the path of Truth despite being on the path in other ways; one becomes confused and despondent or unvirtuous at times; yet one is saved. Why is that? How can one blame them? They know nothing of the Truth's existence - only a hint in a morass of pain. That is because it is not in our knowledge or doings (the way of the Truth), but perhaps that because our lack of control over what shapes us shapes our attainment of the Truth and what seems to be grace. I think this happens quite frequently.
In addition, an example is an individual who takes action contrary to the path of Truth despite being on the path in other ways; one becomes confused and despondent or unvirtuous at times; yet one is saved. Why is that? How can one blame them? They know nothing of the Truth's existence - only a hint in a morass of pain. That is because it is not in our knowledge or doings (the way of the Truth), but perhaps that because our lack of control over what shapes us shapes our attainment of the Truth and what seems to be grace. I think this happens quite frequently.
Comments (33)
I agree. You can be saved but still at times deviate from the Light of Truth. The material world’s temptations sometimes catch us off guard. Thanks for sharing!
It occurred to me that perhaps I misunderstood you. Are you saying that some people believe they are “saved” when they only possess a portion of Truth? Do you believe you know Truth?
How would one know when one has reached it? And how does one sustain living in Truth once it’s reached? It seems to me it takes constant vigilance.
I'm stumped why you see truth as being another name for a goal one would have, so that one is working towards some ideal.
I probably shouldn't speak for Nasir, but I'll give my interpretation:
Truth with a capital "T" is different from "truth". Truth is the ultimate goal of any spiritual being, but whilst one is living in the material realm, one can only catch glimpses of ultimate Truth. One must act in the material realm where we find ourselves in this life, and whenever we act in this realm things will not be perfect as Truth is. We have to find meaning and strive to limit suffering (in Truth there is no suffering but in the material realm which isn't perfect suffering is unavoidable), to become more spirit than matter (Truth is Spirit with a capital "S", hence Nasir's use of the term "nonduality"), etc.
Logic and empiricism are good tools to understand the material realm; but love, peace, joy, empathy, understanding, and patience are needed to understand Truth.
<shrug> Why would you see "experiential truth" as a term for "ideal goals" that someone might have?
So some religious nonsense basically? Again, this board can be frustrating in that there are so many religious believers here as well as so many fans of continental philosophy.
Well, you are entitled to that opinion, but the virtues listed above are good for atheists, too.
Atheist "spiritualism"?
The idea of nonphysical existents in general is incoherent.
"love, peace, joy, empathy, understanding, and patience"
You don't have to be spiritual to believe that these are virtues.
What do those have to do with the term "spirit," with truth, etc?
In religious texts, these virtues must be cultivated to attain Truth (with a capital "T"). Look, you don't have to like it. You don't have to read it. It is your prerogative to comment, but I first recommend reading the Gospels and the Upanishads if you want some context. Read them. Don't read them. No skin off my nose.
That comes across as both patronizing and as a deflection designed to avoid critical thinking.
Haha--touche.
Unfortunately philosophy should have something to do with critical thinking.
That's a sentence you could write. I just don't know why you'd write it.
What I mean is, you seem to be a fan of Anglo-American analytic philosophy. Phenomenology and the corresponding ontology are continental philosophies that deal more with experiential truth than rational truth. Of course there is thinking involved in continental philosophy, as there is thinking involved in religious texts, but both are trying to get at the essence of Being. Anglo-American analytic philosophy seems to fail here (at least to my estimation).
Why in the world would you see ontology as a topic only in continental philosophy, first off?
Well, yeah, because we'd be doing epistemology there instead.
Meant for the other thread?
You hold critical thinking in high esteem because you believe it is the path to attain your chosen ideal of Truth, in OP's words. But critical thinking itself leads one to realize that critical thinking alone cannot determine what you ought to do, it can only help you achieve a goal that was set in other ways. It's only a tool to help you get where you want, it doesn't tell you where you ought to be nor guarantees that you will get there.
Why would you think that I'm doing anything like searching for what I ought to do?
Re critical thinking, I simply see philosophy as a gobbledygooky waste of time without it. It wouldn't at all be something I'm interested in in that case. But it's kind of like how I like fiction to be imaginative or fantastical and not normatively realistic or soap-opera like/just straight drama. I'm just not interested in realist fiction.
What do you do philosophy for then? There is something you want to attain with it. If you don't do it to help you decide what you ought to do to attain what you want, then is it something you do just for the sake of it because you like doing it and practicing your critical thinking? But then I'm thinking that if you like to practice your critical thinking it's because there is something else you want to attain with it and that you believe you can attain with it, which may be merely feeling good, but then feeling good would be what the OP refers to as your chosen ideal of Truth.
Some reasons--not an exhaustive list: I naturally think in a philosophical way. I'm intrigued/amused by the often ridiculous (in my opinion) things that people say under the guise of philosophy, kind if like how I'm intrigued/amused by circus side shows. I see it as a sort of mental exercise (as well as writing exercise).