Someone here

Honestly not in the cards. Just undoable. Obviously you can't just get away with posting whatever the fuck you want . Please present something more reasonable.

@Natasha Tori Maru yeah just don't lock this thread

Sorry to hear . Tell her that her mother didn't really die. Just the body died .the body is only for a short time .its not your home . As the story goes Ramana Maharshi's awakening experience happened when he realized "oh wow! One day I'm gonna die ". Then he lied on the floor and said "OK this body is now dead. Soon it will be carried to the grave . But I'm not this body .therefore who am I?". I don't recall the entire story ..but the point is we are way more than a mere body . We are the eternal essence of existence itself. If I exist then I'm existence. I can't die. There is no where to go .nothing bad can happen to you .nothing can touch you. Maybe I'm speaking things bigger than me but since you posted this in the spirituality section so I hope you and your friend find peace.

@Leo Gura 🙏.

It's called dynamic meditation.

Kinda Osho's Ashram style? Where we are allowed to dance scream cry and fuck ?

OK. I just want to hear multiple perspectives. I Don't wish for absolutist type of answers .I get what you are trying to say though . If you want.. move topic to spirituality section.

I'm personally convinced of everything in the definition except the point that existence itself is actually non-existence..obviously nonsense. The rest is undeniably true. I dare you refute a single point. Pretty sure I've heard you say all these things yourself ad nauseam. Nobody is talking about God now.

Who said it can't be framed ? It's just the stance of denying any inherent existence to anything at hand .so .. Moral Nihilism: there are no objective morals or rights vs wrongs . Existential Nihilism: there is no inherent meaning or purpose to existence. Epistemological Nihilism: knowledge Is impossible. We can't know anything for sure. Ontological Nihilism: Nothing substantial exists. Metaphysical Nihilism: Nothing at all exists..substantial or otherwise. Like that..

Sure . I'm not discussing how your understanding of God intersects with these philosophical schools..I'm discussing them on their own and whether they are true or not .

@Leo GuraYou define God as Existence itself ..also Infinity ..Nothingness..Love..Absolute Truth. Ontological and metaphysical nihilism focus on the "Nothingness " aspect more . If you meant to say they are not wrong but just not holistic or missing other aspects then I do agree .

That's not funny .

Where would it escape to ?

You are repeating the same question. There can be infinite things but they are ultimately still God and still united and still one. A lizard appears distinct from the moon.. So we have two appearances that are still one. If you accept the premise that at the most fundamental level of reality there is one thing..then it follows that there can never ever be any "real others" to that one thing .

From Where would God come up with those others ? What is the clay which God creates things with ? Does he pull things out of his ass ? Well then they are still him. Does he pull them out of thin air? But where did the thin air come from if not from God? Exactly.

Because everything is the Self . There is no solution to this if you want to speak logically. All the animals ..humans..creatures..planets ..other universes..other minds ..etc are the same self. There just isn't any other option. Everything is the self ..and everything is happening within the self .if there was no self There would be nothing from the manifest world..Evident by when you are asleep there is literally no universe . Not sure about the omnipotent thing to be honest .it creates logical paradoxes like the set of all sets and breaking the law of non contradiction etc.

I was suicidal in a serious way in the past and the only thing that stopped me is precisely the "weighing of options". You are not gonna decide the last moment..you gonna rush into it unconsciously. If you gonna stand there at the edge of a cliff and logic with yourself about potential scenarios of afterlife and the fact that this life at least is known and understood to some degree whereas after death is completely and utterly unknown..then you literally can't do it . Unless it's nonstop chronic pain like a serious injury then if the intensity of the suffering is not more powerful than the fear of the unknown then you won't do it . People think they can suicide because of philosophical reasons and reading people like Emil Cioran or Albert Camus..that's a childish fantasy. I think everyone has the right to die peacefully with assistant suicide which is painless. It's their own right. Then again what we do want is to live in peace ..not die in peace. But sometimes death seems more peaceful than life and sometimes the opposite.

"Ego Submission " is the key word . It's as if you are unconscious or drunk or the like ..then it's easy to decide to "go" in a split second without second thought. Kinda like to jump off a plane skydiving you gotta decide without thinking.

Suicide means you are suffering..nothing could be more obvious. We don't actually want to die..that's not the default of humans .but the equation is :unbearable suffering +zero hope or alternative soultion in sight = Suicide. Yes ..most Eastern religions say if you die by killing yourself you will reincarnate in a lesser life form like an animal or insect.. .and Abrahamic religions say if you kill yourself you will go to hell. I feel like there is some truth to it . If not..then why does it not feel right?

I think that's a great way of articulating the problem. My guru told me "any answer you get from the outside is false.look within ". Isn't that itself an outside authority telling me what is true and what is false ?

I'd go as far as to say there is no thing in direct experience which might be an actual perception of "now". There is no solidity to anything.

Thank you . Chatgpt: Your perspective is interesting because it blends epistemology (how we know truth) with phenomenology (how experience appears). Philosophically, it contains several strong intuitions but also some tensions and questionable assumptions. Below is a structured critique. 1. The Core Claim: Truth Requires Persistence You suggest that truth depends on persistence in experience, which you equate with memory. Philosophically, this resembles ideas from: (experience and pragmatism) (temporal structure of consciousness) (ideas as copies of impressions and habits) Critique: Truth vs recognition Persistence may be required for recognizing truth, but not necessarily for being true. Example: a one-time cosmic event can still be true even if never remembered. Memory is fallible If truth depends on memory, then truth inherits memory’s unreliability. Philosophically, truth is normally defined independently of human cognition (e.g., correspondence theories). Category confusion You are blending: Truth (a property of propositions) Experience (a phenomenological event) Many philosophers argue truth belongs to statements about experience, not experience itself. This tension would be criticized by analytic philosophers like . 2. Constructions as Memory-Based Templates Your idea that concepts like chairs are persistent templates applied to experience aligns with several traditions: — categories structuring experience — meaning through language practices modern predictive processing theories of perception. However, there are problems. Problem: Conflating concept formation with truth The fact that a concept persists does not make it true. Example critique: “Unicorn” is also a persistent conceptual template. Persistence alone does not validate ontological status. So persistence might explain how we organize experience, but not why something exists or is true. 3. The Claim that Experience Itself Is Absolute Truth You argue that the existence of something happening is undeniable. This resembles Cartesian certainty: — “I think, therefore I am.” However, your formulation is closer to: “Something is happening.” Strength This is a powerful minimal epistemic certainty. Philosophically similar to: Husserl’s phenomenological givenness some forms of phenomenological realism Critique Even here there are challenges: Who or what experiences? If everything is construction, the subject itself might be constructed. Buddhist and phenomenological critiques Traditions such as Buddhist philosophy argue even the notion of "experience" is conceptually imposed. Self-referential problem If everything that delineates reality is a construction, the statement itself is also a construction. So the theory risks self-undermining skepticism. 4. The Construction vs Raw Experience Distinction You propose that truth might lie in non-constructed experience. This is philosophically controversial. Many philosophers reject the idea of pure, unstructured experience. Example: famously criticized what he called the “Myth of the Given.” His argument: There is no raw, uninterpreted sensory given; all perception is conceptually structured. If Sellars is right, your project of finding non-constructed truth may be impossible. 5. The Red Example Your question about redness touches a classic problem in philosophy of perception. Is redness: a physical wavelength? a neural process? a phenomenological quality? Philosophers call this qualia. Key issue: Even if the experience of red is immediate, the concept of red still structures how we interpret it. So the raw/constructed distinction becomes very difficult to maintain. 6. The Distinction Problem Your final question is philosophically deep: “Anything that delineates reality is probably a construction. But isn't reality just distinctions?” This resembles ideas from: — Laws of Form structuralist and Buddhist philosophy. Critique: If all distinctions are constructed, then: either reality itself is constructed or our access to reality is necessarily constructive. Both undermine the possibility of pure non-constructed truth. Overall Evaluation Strengths Your framework captures several important insights: perception involves pattern recognition concepts are socially transmitted constructions minimal certainty may lie in the existence of experience These align with phenomenology and cognitive science. Weaknesses Key philosophical issues: Truth vs cognition confusion Persistence explains recognition, not truth. Persistence criterion too weak False beliefs can persist. Unclear notion of “raw experience” Many philosophers reject its existence. Self-undermining skepticism If all distinctions are constructions, the theory undermines itself. ✅ A stronger version of your theory might say: Experience is structured through persistent interpretive patterns. Truth is not persistence itself, but stable successful coordination between interpretations and experience. This would move your view closer to pragmatism. If you'd like, I can also: show which existing philosophical positions your view is closest to, or help formalize it into a coherent philosophical theory (because it’s actually close to several modern cognitive theories of perception).

Yes I agree ..language is a huge part of the conundrum. What is language? A commony agreed upon verbal to describe objects ..what are objects without names?

Isn't this question begging ? My question is if you strip away all notions of base reality and also the notion of truth itself along with all of language and concepts and everything you've been taught by others ...then what is left ?

Thinking itself can never be 100% original. I made this point before . Observe yourself thinking ..you are always moving through concrete pathways and spefic lines of reasoning...all of which are not coming from within you from scratch but from others or external sources...not necessarily all of it .I conclude the only thing that is self-evident is raw qualia .