On Enlightenment

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Enlightenment, like everything else in existence, is wholly subjective. The subjective qualities of existence is no more an argument against enlightenment than it is an argument against everything else in existence.

Enlightenment is not a mental state. It is, quite simply, the absence of delusions. On some level, the absence of delusions does not exist, so enlightenment does not exist. However, one can still talk about enlightenment. For instance, although atheism is the absence of the delusional belief in the existence of the Christian God, it is not nonsense to speak of atheism.

It is possible not to be deluded by any given delusion. It is, for the same reason one might not believe any given delusion, possible not to have any delusions whatsoever. Although each man may have a different number of delusions, anyone with even a single delusion can still be called deluded with perfect accuracy.

Perfect wisdom is possible. It is not vain to claim that one has perfect wisdom if one is enlightened. Only someone with perfect wisdom can be positive that he speaks the truth. Without perfect wisdom, the only arguments one can achieve against the perfection of wisdom must be fueled by ignorance. These barely deserve the title "agnosticism".

[paco]

Enlightenment, like everything else in existence, is wholly subjective. The subjective qualities of existence is no more an argument against enlightenment than it is an argument against everything else in existence.

Enlightenment is not a mental state. It is, quite simply, the absence of delusions. On some level, the absence of delusions does not exist, so enlightenment does not exist. However, one can still talk about enlightenment. For instance, although atheism is the absence of the delusional belief in the existence of the Christian God, it is not nonsense to speak of atheism.

It is possible not to be deluded by any given delusion. It is, for the same reason one might not believe any given delusion, possible not to have any delusions whatsoever. Although each man may have a different number of delusions, anyone with even a single delusion can still be called deluded with perfect accuracy.

Perfect wisdom is possible. It is not vain to claim that one has perfect wisdom if one is enlightened. Only someone with perfect wisdom can be positive that he speaks the truth. Without perfect wisdom, the only arguments one can achieve against the perfection of wisdom must be fueled by ignorance. These barely deserve the title "agnosticism".

Hmm...I had a particular experience of enlightenment where I felt that the gods were angry at me! Enlightenment? One must choose his own path that leads to probable cause of enlightenment! Even if we are exempt from a Godlike characteristics, it is vital to know the truth of simplicity, egotism, and immortality! Thank you...

R. L.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

R.L.,

I had a particular experience of enlightenment where I felt that the gods were angry at me! Enlightenment?

No, that is delusional. By definition, that is not enlightenment.

One must choose his own path that leads to probable cause of enlightenment!

Can you think of some behaviours and delusional thought processes that you justify with that line of reasoning?

Even if we are exempt from a Godlike characteristics, it is vital to know the truth of simplicity, egotism, and immortality!

Enlightenment is no more Godlike than atheism is. It involves a refusal to believe in not only some, but all stupidities, which you must find difficult, else you would not be so disgusted by it.

[paco]

Hmm...

Interesting concept! Here's an interesting anology for you! I started reading up on the dictionary lately and found that the best way to memorize definitions is by reading the entire definition! It's cool because I graduated high school with about a vocabulary of around 3,000 words!

[Trevor Salyzyn]

You might find it easier to memorize definitions if you could recognize them when they appear. Dictionaries are a very poor source of information, and are heavily biased in their definitions -- not even academics use dictionaries for philosophy. (Where philosophic dictionaries occur, due to the difficulty of the concepts involved, it's always preferable to read the source material.)

"Enlightenment is, quite simply, the absence of delusions." -me, Opening Post

That is a complete definition. I also placed it in context.

[paco]

You might find it easier to memorize definitions if you could recognize them when they appear. Dictionaries are a very poor source of information, and are heavily biased in their definitions -- not even academics use dictionaries for philosophy. (Where philosophic dictionaries occur, due to the difficulty of the concepts involved, it's always preferable to read the source material.)

"Enlightenment is, quite simply, the absence of delusions." -me, Opening Post

That is a complete definition. I also placed it in context.

I know, I'm studing latin now.

[Shahrazad]

Paco,

It's cool because I graduated high school with about a vocabulary of around 3,000 words!

3000 words? My three-year-old niece is already doing better than that.

[Anders Schlander]

so, you're saying the clear definitions has made you use less words?

[brokenhead]

so, you're saying the clear definitions has made you use less words?

That should be "fewer" words. Right, Trev?