Skip Navigation

User banner

Codrus

@ Codrus @lemmy.world

Posts
118
Comments
167
Joined
2 yr. ago

Knowledge of morality, free of infallibility. I strive to learn and teach of the philosophy, logic, or value of our knowledge of love and hate, good or evil, right and wrong; born from how much more conscious we of ourselves and everything else in contrast to nature — of selfishness and selflessness. Though heavily inspired by Tolstoy's non-fiction, I find any source of humanities knowledge of morality worthy of consideration.

  • What Are Your Thoughts On What Jesus Calls "The Sign Of Jonah"?

    Jump

  • Oh and I don't post about Tolstoy and the Gospel, I post about Tolstoy sure, amongst other things. Recently however I've been posting the preface of his translation of his interpretation of the Gospels: The Gospel In Brief, which is a more philosophical, objective, less supernatural interpretation of them.

  • What Are Your Thoughts On What Jesus Calls "The Sign Of Jonah"?

    Jump

  • Have you considered Tolstoy's perspective on religion? That knowledge is knowledge no matter its source, no matter what we've rendered it ever since its been revealed and labeled. Tolstoy felt as though Jesus (who I equate as a moral philosopher/activist) was simply teaching a teaching that gives meaning to the life of a conscious capable being, and not what we now call "religjon." All the blind men ever since that have applied their blindness to his teaching shouldn't lead one to think that that's what Jesus was ultimately really trying to say.

  • What Are Your Thoughts On What Jesus Calls "The Sign Of Jonah"?

    Jump

  • I agree. However, ignorance (lack of knowledge) is an inevitability, this would of course include the woes of taking oaths (promising to believe things as unquestionably true); "Do not take an oath at all." - Matt 5:34.

  • What Are Your Thoughts On What Jesus Calls "The Sign Of Jonah"?

    Jump

  • Have you considered Tolstoy's perspective on religion? That knowledge is knowledge no matter its source, no matter what we've rendered it ever since its been revealed and labeled. Tolstoy felt as though Jesus (who I equate as a moral philosopher/activist) was simply teaching a teaching that gives meaning to the life of a conscious capable being, and not what we now call "religion." All the blind men ever since that have applied their blindness to his teaching shouldn't lead one to think that that's what Jesus was ultimately really trying to say.

  • What Are Your Thoughts On What Jesus Calls "The Sign Of Jonah"?

    Jump

  • I don't agree with walling off people from knowledge via words for words; more complex words that are just words for more simpler ones that do the job just the same. And you must have missed this:

    "Jesus calls this book the "sign of Jonah":

    The Sign of Jonah

    29 "When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, “This generation is an evil generation. It seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. 30 For as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so will the Son of Man be to this generation." - Luke 11:28

    The sign being an influence, thus, incentive and will therefore, via a knowledge to save themselves from their inherecy to themselves, being absent the knowledge of God (of morality) otherwise; instinct leads us to sin (selfishness), knowledge leads us go be able to pierce through what instinct demands of us, away from the hell we potentially make for ourselves here in this life, becoming either a prisoner of our minds (of our conscience), or to men, ultimately."

  • What Are Your Thoughts On What Jesus Calls "The Sign Of Jonah"?

    Jump

  • I'm more than interested in conversation, that's why they're all titled "what are you thoughts?" Because I'm genuinely interested in them. And no AI.

  • What Are Your Thoughts On What Jesus Calls "The Sign Of Jonah"?

    Jump

  • It's not AI and I'm sorry you've missed the more philosophical message, but its definitely there, but it's shaped around the book of Jonah, that Jesus (who I equate as a moral philosopher/activist) referred to as "the sign of Jonah."

  • Did You Know Leo Tolstoy's Non-fiction Inspired The Thinking Of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Mahatma Gandhi, And Possibly Even Martin Luther King Jr.?

    Jump

  • Did You Know Leo Tolstoy's Non-fiction Inspired The Thinking Of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Mahatma Gandhi, And Possibly Even Martin Luther King Jr.?

    Jump

  • Yeah but then we'd have to mention all the other philosophers that inspired him in some way or another, like Socrates or Marcus Aurelius. His biggest inspiration, objectively, would be Jesus, but from the point of view of Jesus not being supernatural this or that, but a profound philosopher of morality, like Buddha, but with a much bigger emphasis on action and the extremes of selflessness.

  • What Are Your Thoughts On One Of Tolstoy's Greatest influences? (Followed By My Brief Commentary)

    Jump

  • But almost certainly the illiterate peasant that had such an effect on him would have considered supernatural miracles to be literal historical facts.

    What makes you so certain of this?

  • What Are Your Thoughts On The Final Chapter Of Mahatma Gandhi's Autobiography?

    Jump

  • I can't say for a fact of course, but are you assuming that I'm idolizing Gandhi?

  • What Are Your Thoughts On The Final Chapter Of Mahatma Gandhi's Autobiography?

    Jump

  • I think people are really good at lying about people, and subsequently just as good at not even bothering to even begin to consider that what they're being told regarding someone else might be total bullshit, and nothing but the consequence of the lack of knowledge, or experience specifically, of the woes of slander.

  • What Are Your Thoughts On Tolstoy's Evidence Regarding the "Evil" Of Life Not Being a Result Of "Dellusion Or the Morbid State of Mind"?

    Jump

  • Absolutely, my pleasure.

    From what I understand, Tolstoy believed that a more philosophical, objective, non supernatural interpretation of the Gospels but especially of the Sermon On the Mount specifically (Matt 5-6: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=ESV) and its precepts, including to never take an oath at all (including promising to consider anything as infalliable), holds the potential in becoming a kind of constitution for our conscience so to speak, for our hearts, as a species. By constitution I mean something we can gather around and consider a common understanding of how we should be striving to live, something to unite us as a species and make us stronger the same way a constitution does for a nation and did regarding how weak the colonies here in America were back when we didn't have a constitution to unify us; it only divided us and made us weak and vulnerable.

    I'm not 100% on this next bit, but based on reading his non-fiction it sounds like he didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah (savior) in the traditional sense—the Nicene Creed interpretation. I believe Tolstoy believed that Jesus, amongst all the humans that existed both before and after him, was the one that taught and suffered to transfer the knowledge of love so well (not perfectly; if Jesus was God he would've done it so perfectly to the point where it would've easily have done its job by now) that he considered Jesus to be the bee—amongst all those that came before and after him—that stirred (inspired) the hive (humans) so well that ultimately, one could argue that Jesus saved mankind from its inherency to itself: selfishness, being absent the knowledge of his teaching otherwise—the value and potential of selflessness; Messiah is defined as a savior of a people.

    Little do the majority know that they've only smothered (yet again, like the Pharisees and Sadducees did in Jesus' time) the "Law and the Prophets" as a whole: "Love your neighbor as yourself," by all our (again, yet again) incessant, blind oath taking to our contemporaries. To the point where the precepts—born out of the logic of the "Law and the Prophets" as a whole—of the Sermon On the Mount (selflessness) are the last thing people are met with (in favor of the Nicene Creed, of things Jesus never spoke of or even hinted at when he mimicked Moses, bringing down new commandments during the most public point of his ministry, thus, the most accurate) or are taught when they go to Church or are taught of Jesus today, in favor of securing our or ones place in Heaven (selfishness).

  • The Basis of Things and Our Unparalleled Potential for Selflessness.

    Jump

  • The intent isn't to impress, to meet anyone's standards or for any amount of vanity for the sake of myself, but purely to teach. Just as long as the knowledge is being diffused to whatever degree; I'm honored to be a part in its diffusing.

    I appreciate your consideration.

  • Enlightenment

    Jump

  • Sounds like someone needs to read Tolstoy's non-fiction.

  • What are your thoughts on Tolstoy's "life outside of time?"

    Jump

  • Wow thank you, it's my genuine pleasure my friend!

  • Locked

    Bernie was our compromise

    Jump

  • I did say I didn't agree with it at one point i remember, at that point in the war of course I agree with our response, I was disagreeing more with responding to Hitler and his regime with the opposite that he was advocating from the start, collectively.

  • Locked

    Bernie was our compromise

    Jump

  • That's obviously not what I'm saying exactly. If you're interested check out Leo Tolstoy's non-fiction: Confession, What I Believe, The Gospel In Brief, and The Kingdom of God Is Within You

  • Locked

    Bernie was our compromise

    Jump

  • I'm not arguing who's the better man, I'm arguing who's the better groups of people when both are championing iniquity despite their justifications for it. In my opinion neither, considering iniquity to any degree to be nothing but that. I do agree of course it's necessary in plenty of situations, especially considering how barbaric and individualized we still are as a species, but never something to be praised, encouraged or championed to this degree. It wasn't necessary to assassinate yet another CEO in contrast to these more necessary extremes like Hitler for example; he was the farthest thing from a Hitler, thus of course not entitled to the same response. Luigi only put additional influence of violence and hate in the world, handing it over to those that loved the man he murdered, and the wake of their hate influencing others. Like all those that praise this man for stooping down to their level to eliminate the problem.

    Healthcare is just doing what any other industry is meant to do: profit. As long as this is the emphasis the problem will continue to persist. So it's not a matter of how many individuals we eliminate it's more a matter of how many minds we change. Minds aren't changed when they're being threatened, insulted or screamed at; only the opposite has that ability.