Evangelos' Philosophical Seeds

Something that came up while I was reading Pragmatism.

After reading Schopenhauer’s works, despite agreeing with most of his metaphysics, I object to the following: Will is not the ultimate substratum of the inner (phenomenal) world.

Maybe we need to define some new words and tenses for the paradox of existence? First of all, there are things that exist in the eternal now, not the fleeting now.

It is understood, both by reasoning and insight, that the eternal essence of things has a dualistic character.

Before or when everything was created, both from a physics (e.g. the Big Bang) and a metaphysics (e.g.

We notice that we are able (a capacity that is innate and can be cultivated through practice) to not pay attention to thoughts, regardless of what is going on inside our mind, and remain focused on another activity or state, in the same way that we are able to not pay attention to external sounds wh...

What could the divine play be? Is there any way to get a glimpse of what it is or at least what it is not? Is there any way to know if we are aligned (in how we live our lives) with it? If we are on the same track as the game’s original purpose? Are there many games? Do sub-games matter? The animal ...

This is a thought I had since a very young age.

When going against your urges, against your instincts, against your inner animal, against society, but not because of reactive impulses but due to rational judgement and intuition; this is when you momentarily cease to be an intermediate connector of a chain.

Is it like an eternal gift? Do we owe something back? Does it fall into the entropy/physics laws of the phenomenal universe, e.g.

Despite the world having such a rich multiplicity and so many “others” (other organisms, people, galaxies etc).

This non-classical logic statement can be applied across different domains. Apart from its application in logic, it is also a part of Buddhism.

Each one of us is a subjective instance of observation, made out of the whole, other people’s influence, and the laws of our universe.

There are ideas and theories that are entirely plausible but cannot be proven with our current tools of logic and our current understanding of science.

It has been pointed out by various philosophers that we shape a view of the world through our mental faculties.

There are many existential questions that probably cannot be answered inside our frame of reference.

If we define MATTER as the thing that gives concreteness and shape to the 3-D world, creating a substrate layer and IDEA as the notion that is pure information that does not depend on its substrate, similar to what hardware and software are for computing: a) The root of all cannot be simple matter.

As pure beings, we feel that this existence is our playground, and different paths could be materialized/realized.

Someone splits your body and soul instantly. You appear next to yourself, totally identical. Same mindset, memory, ego, everything.

This is related to the metaphysical origin of the world, the first cause that produced all the rich multitude we observe.

What is the root purpose of existence? Is everything based on chance? Is there a plan? Is it a game? It cannot be discovered or explained by the phenomenal world.

There are two types of emotions. The first category includes the regular everyday emotions of joy, sadness etc.

When you look at the distant past and future, for example thinking about: how humanity will be in 1000 years, how the life of the first Homo sapiens was, how the earth would be in one million years, what was before the Big Bang, will the world have an end, you feel the HERE AND NOW more strongly.

Regarding metaphysical inquiries, we can’t touch the truth, only take steps toward concluding what cannot be the case.

Existence shares some characteristics with things we created to entertain ourselves. It inherently has quiz-like properties.

If everything has its opposite, as most things seem to have, what is the opposite of mathematics and its cold calculations? It should be something that is totally vertical to them, that could exist without them.

Someone needs to be content with being discontent. On the other side, probably someone needs to be discontent with being content.

If we suppose that there exists: pure potentiality, pure actuality, pure necessity, as many philosophical and spiritual theories claim, it seems that potentiality should be prior.