Interesting thoughts, but could you explain a little more on how this relates to the quote?

The idea that science would be able to accurately predict an individual's behavior is absurd. Even if you could create a visual representation of all a person's thoughts on a screen, you'd be stuck trying to figure out what it means. You'd have to interpret. Even if you could ask the person themselves what the thoughts or the images mean, he'd have to interpret, because even our own thoughts we don't fully understand. Doesn't the ambiguity of our thoughts and dreams provide a great argument against determinism?

But even if we consider the possibility that science may one day predict human behavior, that is no reason to reject free will. Such a consideration would be based upon nothing more than a belief that science can and will explain everything. If we consider the existence of free will about equally likely as it is unlikely, and we're choosing to believe either one is correct, we may as well choose to believe the most productive of the two propositions. The idea that we can't be held accountable for our actions and that nothing matters because everything has already been decided is hardly productive. And then these people wonder why they become depressed...

Well said, I agree.

There is also the fact that in our society most of us are forced to do repetitive, soul-sucking tasks every day so as to get a piece of paper or numbers on a card that we must have to get food and shelter. To escape from this modern slavery we drown our minds into mindless entertainment so as to make the whole bearable. Consumerism is the painkiller to this torture. Barriers are put into place to prevent us from freeing ourselves of these shackles, if we attempted to grow our own food and build our own house on some land we would be faced with self-proclaimed masters of the land who would evict us with force, and then again we weren't educated to know how to do that. We are born slaves to this all. Then we find ourselves powerless and believe that we can't change the way things are, and so goes on the escapism into unsustainable consumerism. — leo

Lately I've been contemplating the barriers you describe. I'm not certain what part of them is real and what part of them is a product of the minimal standard of living we are prepared to accept. If we accept that all we need is food and warmth in winter, what barriers remain standing?

I don't know much about Gnosticism, but this particular interpretation was inspired by Hermetic philosophy. Hermeticism was influenced by Gnosticism.

Interesting perspective. Another factor is how societies have gotten used to a standard of living which is largely unsustainable and superfluous.

I'd say the vast majority of our material wealth is dead weight and does little to nothing to make us happy, in fact an argument could be made that it makes us less happy. Yet we cling onto it for dear life, no matter the sacrifices that must be made in order to provide it to us.

I'm not sure how I would define this situation.

Thank you all for your various inputs. They have been helpful and insightful.

I've read some interpretations that are pretty close to my own, but I will share mine anyway;

"And the light shineth in darkness;"

Prior to the existence of human consciousness, humans were essentially animals. The darkness represents those animalistic parts of our being. Yet, at one point in our evolution mankind received consciousness; a gateway to truth and wisdom, and like a light it shines within us.

The light contrasts darkness, like the conscious contrasts the unconscious, like wisdom contrasts ignorance.

"and the darkness comprehended it not."

However, the animal parts of our nature predominate, and thus we remain largely ignorant of the light of truth that shines within us.

This interpretation probably needs some context, but I won't care to elaborate on that right now. I am open to refining my interpretation though, so feel free to ask questions or discuss.

That's very insightful. Especially the dual meaning of the last part of the phrase.

I also like the "it means what you think it means"-approach. A phrase can make us see things which we hadn't before and be a source of wisdom, regardless of the intended meaning.

The preceding verses identified Jesus as the Logos and the light. Logos is kind of like divine mind or intellect. So I think the verse is saying that Divine Intellect took corporeal form. The darkness is matter. There are all sorts of gnostic echos and harmonics to it, mixed with stuff that came much later than this text was written. — frank

This I have noticed when reading certain passages. These sorts of influences are very rarely talked about, even though they are fascinating and make me look at Christianity and the Bible in an entirely different way. I am no church-goer, but I wonder how much time is spent by the average modern Christian on such topics.

"Comprehended" is grammatically closer to the Greek word, but there doesn't need to be a gap in meaning. "Overcome" is implied by "comprehended". — Πετροκότσυφας

"To overcome" is rather ambiguous in that context, though. At least in modern language. "To overcome" can mean "to understand", but the word has also been translated as "overpowered" and "extinguished", implying that the darkness attempted and failed to challenge the light in some way.

Treat every piece of information that cannot be empirically confirmed with a great dose of skepsis. Especially when that information comes from politicians, activists or businessmen or organizations that are or could conceivably be affiliated with those either of those.

Also, as a general rule of thumb when trying to understand the happenings in the world that cannot be empirically confirmed, ask yourself "Who stands to gain?"

Wisdom-seeking. True wisdom leads to happiness.

“Watch your thoughts, they become words;
watch your words, they become actions;
watch your actions, they become habits;
watch your habits, they become character;
watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.”
- Chinese proverb

By virtue of recognizing that one has a problem one arguably takes the most important step towards treading a different path. It is never too late, but in order to change one has to take action.

Worship of the material from a very early age, and never meeting the other side of the coin until one starts seeking for it themselves, often only after people start feeling depressed and hopeless. By that time, the mind has been thoroughly poisoned and it is not so obvious that one will ever climb out of the hole they have long been digging for themselves. Its induced and perpetuated by a society that thrives on consumption. A society which seems to be digging a hole for itself in a similar fashion, poisoning itself psychologically (erosion of societal values) and physically (pollution of the environment).

Not for the poor man.

Sometimes I feel joy helping people, but in the example of charity then no, I don't feel joy, since I have no idea what they will do with the money and if they will be better for it.

No, there's no pleasure involved, nor is there pain involved. I give the money because I want to help the person, not because I will feel good about myself, but for no other reason than because I want that person to have slightly less of a hard time.

Of course, this thought comes up before I give the money.

By worry what are you feeling exactly? Does that man that I give live better now or not? — diesynyang

That would be a good way to describe it, yes.

No.

You feel happy because of Hope. That makes you a good guy who felt happiness by giving poor people charity. That is not selfish, but that Charity is indeed making you happy. — diesynyang

No. It's not a feeling of happiness as a result from hope, as the feeling I am left with is a feeling of worry rather than hope.

"Any first order desire must be accompanied by the second order desire of self-love before an action would be reasonably undertaken. This second order desire clearly involves a motive which is either self-regarding or has a self-referential stimulus. Thus Butler fails to demonstrate that we are not aiming at our happiness when we act on a first order desire." — diesynyang

I disagree with this.

Take for example the concept of charity. Why would someone give to the poor?
A cynic may say "because giving to the poor makes one feel good", so it would be inherently selfish.
But this doesn't have to be the case. When one gives to charity, one may also want that person to stop being poor. Not because of any feelings that may be attached to giving freely, but for the sake of the well-being of another person, who is unrelated to oneself. Speaking from a personal perspective, it doesn't make me feel like a good person for giving to someone in need. All it does is make me hope the person I gave money to will put it to good use and help him or herself get out of their bad situation.

As with all these theories that state selflessness doesn't exist; they're usually written by cynics who, by virtue of their own inability to commit selfless acts, project such abilities on everyone around them, and, as with all things psychological, its fairly easy to create a framework that supports it. After all, it is impossible to look inside people's heads to figure out the truth.

^Yes, I think we can rooted by testing themselves mean to know more about them self, if they know about themselves they became happy. — diesynyang

That's not necessarily true. It may bring them knowledge about themselves, but knowledge doesn't always lead to happiness. In fact, I'd say it rarely leads to happiness.

Some want for a better life, which can also be rooted down to "seeking happiness". — diesynyang

It can be, but it doesn't have to be. Some people may simply want to lead a life that isn't harmful to their environment.

Strengthen oneself can also be rooted down to happiness. — diesynyang

How?

There are so many reasons. Some seek it to test themselves. Some believe it is a step to leading a better life. Some believe it will strengthen themselves physically and mentally. Some don't even know the answer.

The Basic Reason for a human to do something is to Be Happy and to avoid Pain. — diesynyang

For a lot of humans, this is probably true. But hardly for all. There are many who consciously abstain from pleasures and embrace hardship.

You can argue that the ends justify the means, but you cannot argue that lying is ethical. Lying is always unethical. — hks

When the choice is forced between two evils, It is not at all unethical to choose the lesser evil. In a vacuum I would agree lying is immoral, but context changes everything.

Oh, right - so you're a Buddhist. I find it quite difficult to relate to Buddhists, because they suppress their emotions, wants and other natural impulses. How can you not see that as disabling? — karl stone

You write seemingly with confidence, yet you understand little about Buddhism. And it is no wonder that you find it difficult to relate to something of which you are ignorant.

Buddhism doesn't tell its followers to suppress any emotion. It tells to cultivate positive emotions, while trying to understand the negative ones. When negative emotions are understood, they can be overcome and turned into a positive force.

Isn't the motivation to lie to prevent a worse immoral deed from happening?
So whilst lying is immoral, in this case one lies to prevent oneself from committing an even more immoral act that would be ratting out one's friend. Or one could choose not to speak at all.

Now, before we start I'd like to say I understand that infinite is a rather loaded term, but I used it to get us into the proper mindset, for the mind is truly expansive, probably more so than we realize. So I would ask of you not to get stuck on the semantics of the topic, but rather explore with me the possibilities of the mind and philosophize how extraordinary (or not) these possibilities are. — Tzeentch

This has already been addressed.

Well, Psychologist and Scientist are STILL arguing that people cannot imagine a new color they haven't seen, even IF the color already exist. (See Google, you might add something to their debate : D) because our brain doesn't work that way. — diesynyang

I'm no scientist, nor am I really interested in scientific theory on the matter. Doesn't it boil down to whether the mind is capable of creating new concepts of its own? That almost goes without saying. All advancements of mankind are fruits of the mind primarily. As long as there is some basis to work from, the new things the mind can imagine are infinite. To illustrate:

Lets say we have the three primary colors: red, blue and yellow. If we start with these three, we can then, by continuously combining them, create new colors and new shades of colors. Every color or shade we create can be combined with the others to create new shades and colors.

Are you sure there are ZERO influence in our brain? : D the concept of debate? color? a child? philosophy? — diesynyang

What I meant is, that we were arguing whether the mind can come up with new concepts out of nothing, but I've never seen, experienced or heard mention of an empty mind, so it's not necessarily productive to argue that point.

Purple is the mix between red and blue. Why would that be unimaginable?
And if math appeared out of there being multiple objects and humans started adding them up, doesn't that mean all an imagination needs is one or more objects to start inventing math on their own?

Anyhow, now we are reasoning from a situation where no outside influences have ever entered the brain, which isn't exactly a situation any mind has ever found itself in.

Some thought experiment, Imagine a genius 5 years old kid who lived only with his small family of 3 in a small deserted little cabin in the barren mountain. He knew simple math and simple english, and only exposed to any 5 years old standard experience. Now imagine if 1 night he was dreaming and he can prolong that dream until eternity. What will he dream? Can he dream the sea even though he never saw the sea? Can he dream a pineapple fruit, even though he never saw that fruit, His dream universe will be the same as the universe he once seen. And when all the possibilities are explored and all the data has been used. EIther it will end (black screen?), he wakes up, or everything repeat. — diesynyang

This overlooks the ability of the human mind to create things on its own. Perhaps the child in the example won't imagine specifically a pineapple, but he would be able to imagine many new things given he has a creative and imaginative mind. And given the nature of dreams, these things may be unbound by physics, time or reality. Mathematics must have also appeared out of nothing in the first mathematician's mind. Man's mind creates new things all the time, so what basis does the assumption have that all data will run out someday?

If there is such a thing as "the mind" then this begs the question Who or What created it? — hks

That is an interesting question for sure, however it isn't necessary to answer it in order to ponder about the mind.

It's possible a lot of the time compression stuff are cheap mental tricks — JupiterJess

"Cheap" mental tricks or not, if you are experiencing it, isn't it real? If, for a moment, we assume that it's possible to live inside your own mind, doesn't that become your reality? Even so, one could argue that the real world as we know it is also an illusion of the mind, no less than a dream is.

What reward that society can offer could possibly interest a philosopher?

The origin of identity politics goes way back. It used to be part of the Soviet agenda on ideological subversion, but its concepts are much older than that. Basically, what it comes down to is that polarizing influences, no matter what form they take, are destabilizing to a nation and thus it was in Soviet interest to foster and grow these influences in other nations, a lot of which was legal, overt influencing. They called it subversion. What the Soviet doctrine emphasized was that you cannot make people believe in things that they do not (want to) believe in, but you can take a belief that they hold and carry them along a path that will ensure they remain a destabilizing influence.

“There is nothing easier than self-delusion. Since what man desires, is the first thing he believes.”
- Demosthenes

You tell people what they want to hear (preferably from a position of some authority) and they will become even more convinced of their beliefs. There's a lot of material on this topic by an ex-KGB informant named Yuri Bezmenov. He defected to the west in 1970 and gave a number of lectures about Soviet influencing campaigns. He called these groups that the Soviets used for their purposes 'useful idiots'. Ignorant people who got fed the lies they wanted to hear and never realized they were being manipulated.

Of ignorant people there is no lack nowadays, and somewhere along the road western society has decided ignorant opinions are worth as much as educated opinions are worth as much as wise opinions. I have no problem entertaining the thought that maybe our society is full of useful idiots.

A lot of morality cannot be enforced, which is exactly why it is considered virtuous to follow such morals. One could even argue that acting in a moral way because you are afraid of repercussions is not true virtue. One should not kill because one believes such an act to be wrong, not because one is afraid they may get caught. This reminds me of the following quote:

“The true test of a man’s character is what he does when no one is watching.”

Death is the great unknown. Whether we live on or die forever, I aim to have peace with both outcomes. In the case we live on, I will have tried in my lifetime to develop my mind and being in such a way that is constructive for the hereafter. Perhaps, as many religions of the world believe, we reincarnate until we reach a form of spiritual enlightenment, so every life should be a small step towards this goal. If, however, death is the end, I will die knowing I have done what I can to seek truth and lived my life according to the virtues I associate with that truth.

Buddhism shares some of the most interesting insights in regards to suffering. Both of your comments echo those insights in that suffering is a choice and often self-perpetuating.

To stop that circle of suffering we need to take into account the feelings of others as well as our own feelings. — leo

Feelings and emotion, while they shouldn't be shunned, should always be treated with second thought. Misunderstanding our feelings is the primary reason we suffer, and not being honest to ourselves about the origin of such feelings.

Is mind-time different from real time? — frank

In my experience it is. I've explained the example of dreams, but there's also the way we experience every day life. Some things are tedious and pass slowly, while other things fly by and you wonder where the time has gone.

The dreams are limited by the energy they are running off. Eventually you will wake up because you need food. — JupiterJess

But how far can we compress time in our mind? Can we experience a week in our minds while only sleeping for an hour? Can we experience a year in a minute?
If we regard this as a form of meditation, one may not need to wake up at all. Monks and sages have passed away whilst meditating. We can only guess where their minds took them and what happened to them after death.

Does a solipsist suffer? — Posty McPostface

I'd say so. It's the circumstances of the being that may cause one to suffer, but suffering is a mental or psychological interpretation of such circumstances.

"Inherent" is a dangerous term to use on a philosophy forum, but lets leave that discussion for another time.

Suffering isn't meaningful unless one seeks the meaning of it. But is it worthwhile to look for meaning in suffering? My answer to that question is yes.

The suffering is happening to you regardless. Looking for a meaning or a lesson to learn from it allows one to learn and turn it into something positive. Perhaps not all suffering, but a lot of suffering is caused by ourselves, so it's within ourselves to prevent it from happening again.
Looking for meaning in suffering may make the suffering itself more bearable. If one looks at suffering as though it happens because the universe is against them and they carry no blame, that's not constructive and I can't imagine that mindset to be helpful. As the old saying goes "What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger". If one keeps that in the back of their minds when going through tough times, it may give them the strength to persevere and be a stronger person in the future.

Indeed, many of the greatest persons we know went through tough times during their lifetimes. I also believe it's very difficult to fully appreciate and experience life without having experienced hardship. Is it inherently meaningful? I don't think so. But it can bear a lot of meaning and life lessons and in my view it is certainly not an inherently negative force.

On such topics as good and evil there are a lot of people whose reasoning is hopelessly hypocritical. I'll find myself playing the devil's advocate often, not to defend the evildoer, but to expose their faulty reasoning.