to °All ~PKK~Women Ing-Uniformal Paz
Its time to say a very good bye in ashamrocks units of and against flyin wingz on youth edu~Aed[en] nize trial 'Paris' for such surgin dogz: can't for goe on, by such stewed dv conceptz to explore excalibour in a 'new land': where ya'have a sill flow on 'Blasen' Arkadesh' as ante dome...how laughable....porn of Jericho Cell tique tax toez!
-how to write ~ ....askin Marie in Grozny first by pub up windz on man criticz stereeo..
Hate ya....absolutely racist on 'Fleisch'-Peru media...indigenous Vienna 'pisse'....1001 H5°Auslangee...
[Friedrich Nietzsche, Opera omnia. Edizione digitale in facsimile, basata sui materiali manoscritti e a stampa conservati dalla Fondazione dei Classici di Weimar, a cura di Paolo D'Iorio]~Gent Squatz children rights up tha Balmore-RAF of womens trust!° Benitto 'Iran'~postmodern prince. "...hae...H5....
ARTICLES, CONFERENCES, ESSAYS, AND ANTHOLOGIES.
The Buddha-wave windin com_sys °onze°~ and Hume denied that there was a self distinct from thoughts, perceptions, sensations. Hume, echoing the Buddhists, said that whenever he made an attempt to discover his self, he found nothing but a bundle of constantly changing thoughts, perceptions and sensations. Both the Buddhists and Hume concluded(or suggested) the self was illusory, fictitious and had no existence independent of thoughts, perceptions and sensations. Yet, this goes against the most fundamental experience we have - the experience of ourselves or the sameness of our identity from moment to moment. I who am aware of thought x am the same person that was aware of thought y, therefore I must be distinct from both of my thoughts x and y. Not only am I the observer of the thoughts x and y, but I even have the power to choose between thought x and y. I might choose not to go with thought x, but go with thought y. Therefore, I must thereby have independence from my thoughts.
If I have independence from my thoughts, then can I be responsible for my thoughts? I would like to think not so, because I can have some very nasty, ugly and evil thoughts, and if I am responsible for my nasty, ugly and evil thoughts, then I must be a nasty, ugly and evil person myself. But this cannot be true, because I also have some very loving, compassionate and beautiful thoughts. Therefore I must be neither a nasty, ugly and evil person or a loving, compassionate and beautiful person. In that case my thoughts are external to me, as much as the changes of weather and the events happening outside of me are external to me - they are occurrences I observe. Therefore, I cannot be responsible for my thoughts.
The logical conclusion that I am not responsible for my thoughts goes against our common sense intuition that we are responsible for our thoughts. If a really nasty and ugly thought comes to me about somebody, I feel distress/anger/disturbance and then act to get rid of that feeling. I may also feel terrible about myself for thinking such a thing and berate myself. The thoughts may even lead me into believing I am a nasty and ugly person. Alternatively, when I think of a really loving, compassionate thought, I feel pleasure/joy/positive and then act to express that feeling. I may feel pride in myself for thinking such a thing and glorify myself. The thoughts may even lead me into believing I am a good person.
Another way I claim responsibility for my thoughts is when I copyright my thoughts by saying "My thoughts" Such as coming up with a theory and then saying "my theory"
So if logically I am not responsible for my thoughts, should I abandon the intuition that I am responsible for my thoughts? What would it be like to live with the philosophy I am not responsible for my thoughts?
..bla,..still racist experiencys never will trust in a United States of math!°
Smellz like Kioo...luum pattay!^
Hate ya....absolutely racist on 'Fleisch'-Peru media...indigenous Vienna 'pisse'....1001 H5°Auslangee...
[Friedrich Nietzsche, Opera omnia. Edizione digitale in facsimile, basata sui materiali manoscritti e a stampa conservati dalla Fondazione dei Classici di Weimar, a cura di Paolo D'Iorio]~Gent Squatz children rights up tha Balmore-RAF of womens trust!° Benitto 'Iran'~postmodern prince. "...hae...H5....
ARTICLES, CONFERENCES, ESSAYS, AND ANTHOLOGIES.
The Buddha-wave windin com_sys °onze°~ and Hume denied that there was a self distinct from thoughts, perceptions, sensations. Hume, echoing the Buddhists, said that whenever he made an attempt to discover his self, he found nothing but a bundle of constantly changing thoughts, perceptions and sensations. Both the Buddhists and Hume concluded(or suggested) the self was illusory, fictitious and had no existence independent of thoughts, perceptions and sensations. Yet, this goes against the most fundamental experience we have - the experience of ourselves or the sameness of our identity from moment to moment. I who am aware of thought x am the same person that was aware of thought y, therefore I must be distinct from both of my thoughts x and y. Not only am I the observer of the thoughts x and y, but I even have the power to choose between thought x and y. I might choose not to go with thought x, but go with thought y. Therefore, I must thereby have independence from my thoughts.
If I have independence from my thoughts, then can I be responsible for my thoughts? I would like to think not so, because I can have some very nasty, ugly and evil thoughts, and if I am responsible for my nasty, ugly and evil thoughts, then I must be a nasty, ugly and evil person myself. But this cannot be true, because I also have some very loving, compassionate and beautiful thoughts. Therefore I must be neither a nasty, ugly and evil person or a loving, compassionate and beautiful person. In that case my thoughts are external to me, as much as the changes of weather and the events happening outside of me are external to me - they are occurrences I observe. Therefore, I cannot be responsible for my thoughts.
The logical conclusion that I am not responsible for my thoughts goes against our common sense intuition that we are responsible for our thoughts. If a really nasty and ugly thought comes to me about somebody, I feel distress/anger/disturbance and then act to get rid of that feeling. I may also feel terrible about myself for thinking such a thing and berate myself. The thoughts may even lead me into believing I am a nasty and ugly person. Alternatively, when I think of a really loving, compassionate thought, I feel pleasure/joy/positive and then act to express that feeling. I may feel pride in myself for thinking such a thing and glorify myself. The thoughts may even lead me into believing I am a good person.
Another way I claim responsibility for my thoughts is when I copyright my thoughts by saying "My thoughts" Such as coming up with a theory and then saying "my theory"
So if logically I am not responsible for my thoughts, should I abandon the intuition that I am responsible for my thoughts? What would it be like to live with the philosophy I am not responsible for my thoughts?
..bla,..still racist experiencys never will trust in a United States of math!°
Smellz like Kioo...luum pattay!^
Indymedia ist eine Veröffentlichungsplattform, auf der jede und jeder selbstverfasste Berichte publizieren kann. Eine Überprüfung der Inhalte und eine redaktionelle Bearbeitung der Beiträge finden nicht statt. Bei Anregungen und Fragen zu diesem Artikel wenden sie sich bitte direkt an die Verfasserin oder den Verfasser.
(Moderationskriterien von Indymedia Deutschland)
(Moderationskriterien von Indymedia Deutschland)
Ergänzungen