Vanity/Morality/Desire/Influence/Knowledge/Imagination/Conciousness/Sense Organs/Present Environment
“Vanity of vanities; all is vanity.” - Solomon.
“Morality is the basis of things, and truth is the substance of all morality.” - Gandhi.
If morality serves as the basis of vanity, then I think the basis of morality is desire; the basis of desire is influence; the basis of influence is knowledge; the basis of knowledge is imagination; the basis of imagination is our sense organs reacting to our present environment, and the extent of how concious we are of this happening.
“The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” - Albert Einstein
The more open ones mind is to foreign influences, the more bigger and detailed its imagination can potentially become. It’s loves influence on our ability to reason that governs the extent of our compassion and empathy, because it’s love that leads a concious mind most willing to consider anything new (your parents divorcing and upon dating someone new your dad goes from cowboy boots only to flip flops for example). Thus the extent of its ability—even willingness to imagine the most amount of potential variables, when imagining themselves as someone else; and of how detailed it is. This is what not only makes knowledge in general so important, but especially the knowledge of selflessness and virtue. Because our imagination needs to be exercised by let’s say reading books or imagining yourself in someones shoes as a couple examples.
When one strikes us accross the cheek, and we stike back in retaliation, we appeal to the more instinctive, barbaric mammal within all of us. But when we lower our hand, and offer our other cheek in return, we appeal to the logical, reasonable thinking being within all of us instead.
I think the only evidence needed to prove my claim made in the title is to use the “skin” that holds the wine of the knowledge of everything we’ve ever presently known as a species: observation. If we look at our world around us, we can plainly see a collection of capable, concious beings on a planet, presently holding the most capacity to not only imagine selflessness to the extent we can, but act upon this imagining, and the extent we can apply it to our environment, in contrast to anything—as far as we know—that’s ever existed; God or not.
What would happen if the wine of our knowledge of morality was no longer kept separate from the skin we use to hold the knowledge of everything else: observation, and poured purely from the perspective of this skin? Opposed to poured into the one that its always been poured into, and thats kept it seperate at all in the first place: a religion. There’s so much logic within religion, that’s not being seen as such because of the appearance it’s given when it’s taught and advocated, being an entire concept on what exactly life is, and what the influences of a God or afterlife consist of, our failure to make them credible enough only potentially drawing people away from the value of the extremes of our sense of selflessness—even the relevance of the idea of a God or creator of some kind; becoming stigmatized as a result.
There’s a long-standing potential within any consciously capable being—on any planet, a potential for the most possible good, considering its unique ability of perceiving anything good or evil in the first place. It may take centuries upon centuries of even the most wretched of evils and collective selfishness, but the potential for the greatest good and of collective selflessness will have always have been there. Like how men of previous centuries would only dream of humans flying in the air like the birds do, or the idea of democracy.
“We can’t beat out all the hate in the world, with more hate; only love has that ability.” - Martin Luthing King Jr.
“Morality is the basis of things, and truth is the substance of all morality.” - Gandhi
“Respect was invented, to cover the empty place, where love should be.” - Leo Tolstoy
"Never take an oath at all. Not to heaven (God and an afterlife), or Earth (humans)…Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ (regarding these influences); anything more than this comes from evil (a worry, a need, a fear for oneself; a selfishness, i.e., a religion). - Jesus, Matt 5:33
“The hardest to love, are the ones that need it the most.” - Socrates
I’m not sure that I understand what you’re saying, but I’d like to respond once I have a confirmed understanding. Is this an accurate rewrite? I feel like kind of a dick doing this, but I hope it’s welcomed
The Foundation of Morality, Selflessness, and the Logic Within Religion
Vanity, Morality, and the Chain of Influence
“Vanity of vanities; all is vanity.” – Solomon
“Morality is the basis of things, and truth is the substance of all morality.” – GandhiIf morality is the foundation of human behavior, then what underpins morality itself? Here’s a proposed chain of influence:
- Morality is rooted in desire,
- Desire stems from influence,
- Influence arises from knowledge,
- Knowledge depends on imagination,
- Imagination is shaped by our sense organs reacting to our present environment,
- And all of this depends on how conscious we are of these processes.
The more open-minded we are to outside influences, the richer and more detailed our imagination becomes. Love plays a key role here—it influences our reasoning, compassion, and empathy. A loving mind is more willing to consider new perspectives (e.g., a divorcé changing his identity after finding a new partner). This openness enhances our ability to imagine ourselves in someone else’s shoes and understand their experiences.
Instinct vs. Reason: A Choice Between Barbarism and Logic
When someone strikes us, retaliating appeals to our primal instincts—the “barbaric mammal” within us. But choosing not to strike back—offering the other cheek instead—engages our higher reasoning and self-control. This choice reflects the logical, compassionate side of humanity.
Observing Humanity’s Unique Potential
If we observe humanity objectively, we see beings capable of imagining and acting on selflessness to an extraordinary degree—far beyond any other known species. Whether or not one believes in God, this capacity for selflessness is unique and profound.
What if we stopped separating morality (traditionally associated with religion) from observation (associated with science)? What if we viewed morality through the lens of observation alone? Religion often presents morality in terms of divine influence or an afterlife, but this framing can alienate people. By failing to make these ideas credible or relatable, religion risks stigmatizing concepts like selflessness or even belief in a higher power.
The Potential for Good Amidst Evil
Humanity has always had the potential for immense good because of its ability to perceive good and evil. Even after centuries of selfishness or suffering, this potential remains—just as humans once dreamed of flying or creating democracy before achieving them.
As Martin Luther King Jr. said: “We can’t beat out all the hate in the world with more hate; only love has that ability.” Love—and by extension selflessness—is humanity’s greatest strength.
Key Takeaways from Wisdom Throughout History:
- “Morality is the basis of things, and truth is the substance of all morality.” – Gandhi
- “Respect was invented to cover the empty place where love should be.” – Leo Tolstoy
- “Never take an oath… Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more comes from evil.” – Jesus (Matthew 5:33)
- “The hardest to love are the ones that need it most.” – Socrates
In summary, humanity’s capacity for selflessness is unparalleled. By combining observation with moral reasoning—and grounding it in love—we can unlock our greatest potential for good.
Wow, I’m speechless, this is fantastic. Genuinely, thanks for taking the time to write this up, it makes me feel fully understood, and “healing begins when you begin to feel heard.” So thanks for that honestly.
I’ve been talking to a lot of pastors about this for the past few years, so I guess I end up wrongly assuming that people will understand things like the “skin and wine” reference I guess you can say, for example.
I almost asked if you’re a pastor lol.
I’m glad you like it!
And ultimately what I’m trying to say here, is that ironically, the people that would be seeing the psychology and sociology within religion, by seeing the words and the logic they connotate as nothing but that—aren’t. Because again ironically, the people that see the value and potential to it, aren’t teaching it along with the way people like even Jesus advocated for it to be taught: to never see anything man made as unquestionably true. To see things as true, of course, but never where it’s no longer up for question, and that it’s no longer capable of error.
Obviously a big claim regarding Jesus, but it makes perfect sense if you consider the extent “oath-taking”—I like to call it—divides us. Whether it be the division between nations all the way down to things like racism or slander and collective hate. And if you consider the potential of the opposite, of the masses being taught to never be lead to feel as though they would kill, harm, hate, or be iniquitous in general for the sake of any man made thing—or to always be re-examining their life as Socrates put it, then I can’t help but to think this would undoubtedly hold the most potential for unity, in contrast to any amount of the opposite.
Personally, I feel that morality is a spook but, for the sake of discussion, I’m just gonna speak about it as if it’s not.
Morality is rooted in desire, which stems from influence, knowledge, imagination, and sense perception.
I appreciate the empiricist take, but this chain of influence feels a bit too reductive. While sensory perception and imagination certainly play roles in moral reasoning, this seems to ignore the evolutionary and social dimensions of morality. This is understandable to do if you’re religious, but I find it incomplete when framed through empiricism. Moral Foundations Theory suggest that moral instincts (e.g., care/harm, fairness/cheating) evolved to address group survival challenges. If we stop at desire, I can see how that could account for morality’s deep ties to communal needs and power structures, but glossing over this and boiling it down to sense perception seems too narrow. Is this what you meant regarding psychology and sociology?
Choosing not to strike back—offering the other cheek instead—engages our higher reasoning and self-control.
I think this framing creates a false binary between instinct and reason. You may have had a particular context in mind here, but the context matters too much to not specify. For marginalized people facing systemic violence, self-defense or resistance isn’t “barbarism”—it can be a necessary act of survival or even, arguably, a moral imperative. While self-control can be virtuous in some cases, retaliation isn’t inherently immoral; it depends on the circumstances. I assume you can agree with this, as your core thesis seems to be a utilitarian one rather than deontological
Humans exhibit unparalleled selflessness due to their ability to imagine others’ experiences.
This feels anthropocentric, which I understand, if you’re religious, but altruism exists in many non-human species—primates share resources, elephants mourn their dead, and dolphins help injured peers. While humans have unique capacities for abstract reasoning, selflessness isn’t exclusive to us. Moreover, even human altruism often has roots in reciprocal benefits or social expectations.
What if we viewed morality through the lens of observation alone?
I’m confused about your goal/purpose with this. Is your primary argument that people ought to utilize religious frameworks for morality, or that they don’t need to? Or something else? It seems to me that you raise a good argument for secular ethics, but I get the feeling you didn’t intend to.
Love enhances moral reasoning by fostering openness and empathy.
Framing morality as love is sweet, and nice to read, but moral decisions often involve competing values—like justice or autonomy—that can conflict with love. Additionally, centering love risks excluding those who struggle with traditional notions of empathy due to trauma or neurodivergence.
Can you explain the last bit a little more? What do you mean by “centering love?” And if I’m understanding you correctly (I don’t think I am, not because I think you’re wrong but because I think I’m stupid lol) you’re saying that we would exclude people with these conditions? Why? Wouldn’t our knowledge of love (selflessness) only lead to more of an understanding of variables like these? Thus more of a lack of fear and less of an anger or hate for them? I hesitate to respond without knowing exactly what you meant (I fear I’m only making a fool of myself by doing so) so disregard this last bit if it’s not lining up with what you intended by it.
And thanks so much again for taking to the time! It’s a relief finally talking to someone other than someone blinded by their belief about this stuff, despite it potentially discrediting what I have to say—I’m here not for myself, and certainly not for any amount of vanity for the sake of myself, but for nothing but the truth, and being wrong only leads one more to exactly that: the truth.
So I’d love to hear your argument as to why morality is a spook. Like Nietzsche suggested im assuming? You’re full on suggesting that it’s not real? I like to chalk stuff like this up to nothing but words of the fortunate. My refute would simply be: you go to war, come back and tell me morality isn’t real (Socrates and Leo Tolstoy were war veterans). I like to bring up this story I heard a while back as well, in short: a mother from a third world country is forced to watch as her children are butchered in front of her, then their remains stuffed into an oven, cooked, and this poor woman (I hope your doing nothing but imagining yourself as her in her situation at this point by the way) is forced to eat them, yep, she’s forced to eat the remains of her cooked, chopped up, dead children. Idk man. You look Martin Luther King Jr. in the eyes (hell, even Abraham Lincoln) and tell him morality isn’t real; that the extent racism and segregation was practiced isn’t bad, and it’s not good either, it’s just, idk, nothing you’re saying? I honestly haven’t bothered learning Nietzsche’s argument towards it, I guess I’m guilty of close-mindedness in this account, I’ve always felt as though the very idea of it not being real as an absolute absurdity, like saying we don’t need air to breathe or 2+2 is 3.
Well, I wouldn’t say I’m boiling it down to exclusively sense perception necessarily; the whole chain of influence thing is nothing but the end result of me thinking all about where things like morality and desire come from exactly (if morality is the basis of things, would there be a basis to morality? And i just kept going), I’d be the first to admit it’s inaccuracy, if any. And I feel as though giving even a crude representation of the basis of things is enough to get my point accross regarding imagination and that love is the greatest teacher, and especially that desire in general stems from nothing but our sense organs reacting to our environment, and the extent of how concious we are of it happening. My intent is more to shed a little light on the barbarianism of things like our carnal instinct or to even watch TV, or more specifically—vanity and desire for the sake of oneself; that it’s what a collection of concious monkeys would aim for, and that humans are the most capable of the opposite, to even suffer to abstain from it; God or not.
Yes so this topic has always been a very delicate one. I personally completely agree with Gandhi for example, that who’s to say how many less people would have died if we would’ve “given ourselves up to the butchers knife” in World War 2, opposed to do what we’ve always done throughout history: retaliate. This is where Tolstoy’s Personal, Social, and Divine Conceptions of life come into play. Peace can be reached, but it comes down to individuals willingness within each generation to give themselves up for it, to die a martyr to it by teaching it via exemplifying it (Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one think of changing themselves." - Leo Tolstoy). Presently, and ever since forever, selfishness has been the emphasis (something for something), that’s why this idea to you and I still sounds absurd. However, I think in the very far future, the opposite will be the social norm (something for nothing). “If men were Angel’s, there would be no need for government.” - James Madison (i think this quote coupled with this perspective would line up with your anarchist perspective—I believe in a future where government is no longer necessary, but through a government; a time where government is no longer necessary, but on the other side of the most amount of government.) This is what I meant about how men of the past would imagine humans flying in the air like birds or the idea of organizing ourselves around something else besides a King, Tyrant or Dictator. Selflessness to even the most extreme degrees, ultimately, to the the point where even “rights” this and “individualism” that has become obsolete, dare I say.
The context was someone slapping you in the cheek, and you offering them your other cheek in return, and taking this context and applying it to bigger ones like even War, all the way down to racism, the tailgater or the bully at school. The bigger contexts are obviously the more controversial, and require the most will to fulfill, but the bully at school? Doesn’t seem like the worst thing to respond to them with collective love opposed to collective hate. We only breed the worst of the world by reacting to what we hate with more hate. There’s no future that consists of a century of people finally either eliminating or locking up all the worst of the world of that present time (something for something) and living happily ever after. The only true cure is love (something for nothing) and our knowledge of it, and a newfound understanding that desire for the sake of oneself (the need to retaliate or the fear for oneself that only leads to anger) is selfish and barbaric and only ever leads to more hate, anger, and evil in the world, i.e., the “vicious cycle.” Only when we no longer see the fulfillment of our greatest desires as being our highest happiness—individually, are we able to move beyond the inherently self-obssessed barbarian that’s still within all of us, to a future where at least violence is considered obsolete—collectively.
I’d love to share more examples of the Sociology and Psychology within religion if you’re interested but I don’t want to end up making this comment to much of a chore to read than it already is lol so ill just give this one for now: It’s only what a person thinks that can truly defile them: “What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.” - Matt 15:11 "Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.” - Matt 15:17 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+15&version=NIV
So if you convince yourself that others are xyz because someone told you that, then that’s what it becomes. Like racism, or hate between nations (via either their governments or oaths that have been taken to the idea of a God or Afterlife and their pasts, or both), or convinced that we should throw the supposed messiah up on a cross, or not allow women to be pastors, or discriminate towards gay people, or not to bother with new knowledge or foreign influences because supposition this or assumption that, etc. Taking oaths—to yourself or to someone or something else, I guess I call it, but only because I’m ignorant to the proper term that’s probably already been invented.
Yes yes I’ve heard this dozens of times, I’m not saying we’re the only living things capable of selflessness, I’m saying we’re the ones that presently hold the most capacity for it on this planet, and that have ever existed—as far as we know of course. Both to not only imagine it in our heads (our imaginations being what’s truly unparalleled, though I can see the argument toward the idea that other species might very well have more ability in this regard, its seemingly impossible (from my more ignorant point of view) to say for sure obviously, but we do reign supreme in going about it, expressing it to one another, acting upon it, and applying it to our environment) but of course the extent we can even toil and suffer in applying it to our environment, not only individually, but especially collectively.
I’m saying that we don’t teach the value and potential we hold for selflessness in public schools and to the masses in general because it’s to busy being tied up under some man made thing being held as unquestionably true via the influences of a God and an Afterlife. I’m very, very, anti religious, however I’m the complete opposite when it comes to the substance of religion; of the potential we hold to even giving ourselves up entirley for a purpose or reason outside of ourselves, because it’s the truth, dare I say. The fact that we hold so much potential for selflessness—not only individually but especially collectively, is as true as we need air to breathe, or that when adding 2 things with another 2 things, we get 4 of them. A God on the other hand? I have no idea (I myself believe in a creator of some kind, but i agree with Jesus that anything more than this comes from evil: a worry, a need, a fear for oneself; a selfishness) and I know that to suggest that I do is to only put even more potential divison in the world than there already is.
That’s what morality is though—love and hate, good and evil.
Justice from a man’s point of view would equate to revenge or vengeance (something for something). Justice from the point of view of a God or creator of some kind would be the opposite (something for nothing): infinitely forgiving, love unconditionally.
Hey I just wanted to let you know I’m going to be taking the time with your comment at some point either today or tomorrow. I’m sorry for the delay I’ve been too busy. And I want thank you for taking the time at all, can’t tell you how much I appreciate it.
Okay!
To add a little more context to something I glossed over…
I’m an amoralist/“psychological egoist” (in quotes because it’s a problematic term). I do everything in my own self interest, but helping others and being a person who does ‘good’ things makes me feel good, so I’m a therapist, anarchist activist, and vegan.
I believe that everyone, like me, is internally ‘selfish’, acting exclusively in their own self-interest (though they may not realize it) and may externally appear selfless.
I also don’t believe in “free-will”
So this is purely a theoretical discussion for me, as we’re talking about something I don’t believe in
Love the circular logic of a drug addled mind failing to present a logical flow of ideas. In this case your Christian religion is the drug and you clearly have not escaped without suffering mental damage.
I’m not religious. In fact, what’s being stated above is the opposite of what a religion would advocate—to hold it as unquestionably true, opposed to true but not that it’s no longer up for question, and considered what’s called “infalliable” or no longer capable of error.
Now that I’ve put forward plenty of evidence to support my claim, would you be willing to be the first person after days of posting different opinions regarding the same general topic, to give legitimate reason as to why I’m wrong? Opposed to only insulting me and passing off what I have to say (which is what people like Socrates, Leo Tolstoy and Gandhi had to say—these men were far from “drug addled,” they also seen religion from my same perspective) as “stoner pontification,” as an example.
Consider shedding the hate that’s clouded your mind and thats led you to be so close minded, and allow love (your sense of selflessness) to clear it up, only leading you to consider the new knowledge or foreign influences that would undoubtedly lead your imagination to become even more powerful and detailed than it already is.
You haven’t presented any evidence, it’s observations and personal opinions.
So you’re saying people like Socrates, Leo Tolstoy, Gandhi etc didn’t present any evidence? And what they had to say isn’t worth considering therefore? Because again, the evidence they put forth based off their observation, is the same as mine.
The evidence I present is there, if you would read what I have to say to understand it—opposed to not even bothering with it at all and assume it’s nothing but stoner this or drug addict that—then that’s what we would be talking about right now.
What do you think things like the Big Bang Theory are? Scientific theory, based purely off our ability to observe the world around us. Not to mention philosophy. Why do you bother with anything on this sub then? All you’ll ever find is almost exactly what you just said: personal opinions based off observation.
What makes my personal opinions based off observation any different? I don’t know why I even bother to ask, because you’ll either not reply, or just chalk it up to pontification, despite pontificating to any degree absolutely not something that’s no longer worth considering, not by any means.
Hand picked quotes of ancient philosophiers is not evidence. For example another thing Socrates said is:
“The virtue of a man is to govern, and the virtue of a woman is to manage the household.”
Therefore by your definition this is evidence that a women that is unable to maintain a household is worthless.
What you’ve done is find quotes that agree with your observations. Ultimately, this is all confirmation bias.
You made no attempt to challenge your own assertions. When I did so, you immediately demanded I prove you wrong, shifting the burden of proof as Aristotle may have called it.
I’m clearly not merely quoting ancient philosophers; especially considering Jesus, Gandhi, and MLK are amoungst them.
You’re only referencing the standards and societal norms of the day. 2+2 is still 4 regardless who says it and who they happen to be underneath; responding to hate and evil with equal parts love and goodness is more logical, regardless if it’s Jesus or Hitler saying it.
Challenging ones own assertions is a huge emphasis of what I have to say: “to never take an oath at all.” And you didn’t challenge my assertions at all, you did nothing but label them and consider them useless as a result.
My argument still stands. You have no idea what your refuting because you haven’t even bothered with what’s being refuted yet; resulting to you walking into contradiction after contradiction. I still have no idea that you have any idea what I’m talking about.
If you believe Jesus is more than a philosopher, you are a Christian.
By your logic, Ukrainians should respond to Russianms invasion with love and goodness. That’s has never worked.
Bullies don’t stop being bullies because you love them. This isn’t a lifetime movie.
By the way if you’re looking for more evidence check out my post: Socrates, The Story of Jonah, and Jesus.
Never said I did, and it takes far more then that to be considered a Christian to Christians, depending on which type of Christian you’re asking of course. (There’s 35-40 thousand different types to ask apparently)
It worked in gaining India’s independence, amoungst other examples. Things like the idea of Democracy were also seen the same way as you’re seeing our capacity for selflessness now, and returning good for evil done specifically.
“The hardest to love are the ones that need it the most.” - Socrates. Based off my 10 years experience working with them, I can tell you you’re absolutely wrong in ever way in that regard. And it’s less about getting them to stop being a bully, and more about teaching others the relevance of resisting the selfish barbarian within all of us when met with what we hate, to find alternative solutions our inherent ability to logic and reason shows us; like collective love opposed to collective hate, that only ever leads to more hate.
