Life and Death, and Breathing.
If we consider that everything that breathes is living, then we must conclude that everything that lives will die. We cannot conclude that everything living is an animal for the sensations we feel are not anything identical to those that are non-animals. Just like life itself, we are divided into three parts: living being our minds, dying being our body, and breathing being our feelings.
How do these pertain to each other? Let’s take a look:
Living, being our mind.
It is simple and easy to live, you do a few things, you run a few errands, you eat, you move, you sleep, everything. What possesses us in this simple, yet tedious task is our mind. Our mind controls everything that makes up our internal being as well as our exterior. To be completely oblivious to this notion and simple fact is to deny one’s existence to the world itself.
To continue with the bodily movements and choices one agrees to, the line of “Do what your heart says, not your mind” is superfluous; what the heart does is what the mind controls. Simply enough, just use your head to figure your next steps. It is without doubt that complete dominance over your choices is enclosed within the judgements on one’s morals and utter consciousness, that what you decide for yourself is what should be the best.
But what is living without purpose? What is living with our goals, without desire to learn, without the aspiration to be more than just “another number” in the human population? Living has no purpose besides those of what we make for ourselves; our target, our destination, our final standpoint. What is the reason we live to live? We live to die? Die to live? Live to make a change and then die abruptly? Is it without reason to understand that we aren’t meant to make anything of this? Questions, questions, questions.
Dying being our bodies.
And thus, this is not needed to be explained — or does it? Disregard the obvious, the decaying of bones, skins, and muscles; think of it abstractly, think of it as something like a burning candle smoldering down to its very last strand of string, of wax — just as we begin to descend and vanish like the flame itself. Just as we are one to eventually fade, we live and we live.
We never truly die for there is certainly a memory of your soul the dwells within the hearts of one (or many other). That eventually, even when your flesh is taken up by maggots, when your bones deteriorate, or whether your urn tips over and smashes, you never die.
That dying is just a concept or lost hope and of physical being — that emotional distress becomes too overwhelming that death is called “passing over” or “resting in peace/heaven;” that people are truly scared of death because they would not have anything to do. Death ensures one that there is limited time, motivates one to do what they want before it’s too late.
Death ensures that we will still be lit by the fiery warmths of the dirt surrounding us.
Breathing being our feelings.
This must be the most abstract of all concepts for it’s explanation is no longer able to be furthered without fear of blatant contradiction. For feelings cannot dictate whether we breathe or whether we don’t breathe — or do they?
For feelings are powerful, feelings can override the mind as quickly as dipping the motherboard into a cool pool of water. What begins to manifest from the breathing pattern of feelings is that when you begin to feel anxious, you breathe faster. When you cry, your lungs skip steps. When you are angry, you hold it until you can not longer move because blood cannot flow. When you laugh, your breathing gets more intense. When you are frightened, your breathing slows and you slow with it.
For even love and lust can end breathing; for the attempted suicides from the inability to justify one’s feeling can lead to devastating outcomes. It is not certain as to why the psychological pressures influences so drastically on our breathing, it is not known as to why the patterns vary in accordance to a person.
But those compile the part of life in which we disregard on the daily.
There are too many things that can be added to this, it is not known to I until I begin to take part and dive into the deeper sources of Aristotle.
Just like Shrodinger’s cat, we know it’s alive, we know it’s dead, but we don’t know for certain which is which; just like that, we are alive, we are dead, but which is it really? What constitutes living? Breathing? What constitutes dead? A non-beating heart? What if breathing is death, what if hearts not pumping is life?
We only have these “natural orders and laws” so that we can differentiate but can’t we just be separated? Can’t we just do what we want to do for once?
Understanding that there are certain levels of truth has proven to be quite handy; taking notice to body language whilst a person is speaking can help indicate when a person has hit a rough patch in their story thus revealing high (but more likely) low truth level. Then again, truth is innumerable, it cannot be measured for it falls underneath subjective relativism. And yet, some things cannot be proven yet remains true. What is this? I have yet to figure it out.
There must always be a complete absence of doubt in order to understand the concept of truth, yet, truth cannot be perceived without some notion of being this or that. On the basis of this, truth is nonexistent and truth only lives on subjective relativism; that truth may only liberate what the soul needs but not what the mind truly desires.
Something about Dreams and of the Sort
To further extend some knowledge about the capabilities of our soul, we must analyze and inquire which part of our soul facilitates or pertains to dreaming and whether the soul is present whilst dreaming. Dreaming is dependent upon our senses for dreaming may be auditory or visual, that there is this general perception in regards to general senses; if these common perceptions become feasible then we can further extend this to motion, shapes, colors, magnitude, etc.
Course we can never forget senses such as touch, smell, and taste. The question is whether we can define if a creature is sleeping because its eyes are close of if it is awake because its eyes are open — if we can conclude that the statement of “ creatures who close their eyes dream,” and we can agree that the creatures are dreaming.
It is natural to man to arise from sleep, to try and recall his dreaming experience, to compile effort just to manifest the dreams he had into something realistic. What illusions we experience during waking hours is identical with that which produces the illusionary effects in sleep, and that even with perfect health the sun may only look the size of penny as with someone who is ill.
But the dreamer may not see anything at all if dreams are affected by senses; i.e. if a person slept in pure silence, in complete darkness and no disturbances, it may very well be plausible that the dreamers sleeps but dreams nothing. Likewise, if a dreamer is put into an environment with sounds of barking dogs or a busy market street, the mind may generate an illusion in accordance to the sound they hear while the sleep.
That it is also possible that the seasons we dream of are from the influence of outside body temperature or a product of a chilling room; that indirect influences are just as high in supremacy as sense. And so plainly as it is, dreaming is no mere exercise of the brain, of imagination, or intelligence — that dreaming is the combined efforts of the soul to project and heighten our senses during “sleep hours.”
But where do we go from here with dreaming and its intentions? We cannot make it that sleep occurs because of one organ for sleep benefits the entire body and soul as one. It is blatant enough that dreams pertains to sense-perception but since has been accomplished in On The Soul that the presentation of both dreaming and the soul are identical is sense-perception, is it possible to say the notion for which dreaming is all in reliance of the soul?
On the Soul, an interpretation of Aristotle.
Before one tries to attain any certain degree of knowledge about one’s soul, the first question to be asked is, “what is it?” Is it a substance, is it a being that is unseen, is it something that everyone has, or is it even quantitative at all? Any assured knowledge about the soul remains true to the person who discovered it and thus being able to classify what is a soul remains questionable for its further importance.
What also must take into consideration on whether the soul is divisible or is without parts, that whether we are heterogeneous or homogeneous with it; that if we are heterogenous with our soul then we must examine ourself without emotions for many claim that our soul is the source of emotions, of feelings, or thoughts and morality. However, if we are homogenous with our soul then we must begin to describe and understand the nature of our actions along with whether we act on feelings (and/or obligations) or with instincts.
But if the soul were described in parts then we must assess which parts are our emotions, which parts are our thoughts, which parts are the parts in which anger resides or which is the act of pure instinct. Also, are these parts a part of one mixture or are these that act on their own? The soul is imaginative, the soul is seen coexisting with a body but that does not dictate whether it is heterogenous or homogeneous and that it may very well be sitting beside us instead of inside. That whether we choose to believe in a soul or not is either observed for analytical thinkers or experienced through phenomena, the ability to ascertain either of the two is nearly impossible without rationalization.
Some say that the soul regulates movements, that it assists us in cognition and that potentially anything that does not move, or is free to roam, has no soul. However, Aristotle believes that the “soul is the first grade of actuality of a natural body having life potentially in it.” That even if plants cannot move at free-will, each part “harnesses” its own soul and thus the soul is a natural organized body.
And what can now be dismiss is whether the soul is separate of the body or is one for it is meaningless to ask like whether the shape of wax was given to it by the stamp are one. Fundamentally, unity has many sense (as many as ‘is’ has) and that the definition for a soul is a substance that corresponds with a body/thing’s essence.
Psychology and the Soul.
Psychology is the science of the soul; it differs from physiology and anthropology — physiology focuses on the make up the human body, the parts, and the functions for each organ, hand, fingers, etc. Anthropology treats the body and the soul as one single product in different varieties and explains the influences of the body from the soul.
Although both physiology and anthropology explains both the soul and the body, it only articulates on the foundation of general observations, many that do not require much scientific analysis and inquiries which is why the special and profound studies have been left to psychology. What distinguishes psychology and physiology is that psychology targets the phenomena caused by consciousness whereas physiology apprehend phenomenas by senses.
Psychology of the soul proceeds to say that only assumptions are known by the soul concerning itself. This power of the soul to know itself and its states is coined consciousness. The phenomenas that the mind and soul experiences will remain on the basis of experience and thus reducing “symmetry of science.” No one dares to doubt or deny what one thinks and remembers or what he hopes and fears.
Though emotions can be a a large factor to a person’s well-being, a person’s ability to feel joy, anger, sadness, and a vast array of emotions is what makes a person interesting, and makes up the most important part of said person’s being. Blatantly, what we accomplish and aspire to be depends on most of what we are in thought, not what we think of.
To understand what one’s soul is like, only the actions of what thyself does will benefit — no one may do these actions for you for it would benefit them in the process. No evidence of what are written in articles, researched or proven can describe to you what your soul and consciousness is like. When one finds that they are speaking to themselves it is when their conscious begins to contribute instructions.
The things that one speaks about when they speak to themselves are in an unknown tongue, that the questions brought to oneself does not bring upon answers that manifest from reflective self-acquaintance. The self-knowledge that stems itself from psychology is used to aid us into understanding and interacting with our fellow men/women.
Physics, Logic, and Ethics.
Ancient Greek philosophy is divided into 3 branches: physics (a science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions; the physical processes and phenomena of a particular system; the physical properties and composition of something), ethics (the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation; a guiding philosophy), and logic (a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration; interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable).
Logic is seen theoretical and cannot be empirical in any form for the fact that logic is through the use of necessary laws and must rest on grounds not taken from experience. Physics, however, has two parts: metaphysics of nature and metaphysics of moral; thus it contains an empirical form and a rational form.
Nothing can be born into the world with judgement on whether it is with good or bad qualifications, except good will, and so even the highest form of intelligence, wit, judgement, talents of the mind, courage, and other enviable traits, though can be good, also can become devious and extremely bad. Therefore, we cannot dictate what characters may be good or bad. This is also very applicable to gifts of fortune such as wealth, power, good health and recognition for what one constitutes as happiness may be completely off-radar with another’s view of what happiness is.
There are qualities that aid in service to good will but are not essentially intrinsic and therefore does not allow us to justify them as purely good. Because we act on certain levels of volition, the act of good will is not good because of its effect or result but because itself is esteemed much higher than it can be brought in favor or disfavor of misfortune. But just because someone commits themselves to act on the basis of good will, this does not deem their character as good for we never really know whether they act on the impulse of pure good or for the self-interest of acknowledgement and self-gain of worth.
However, it is with human development that we also grow with certain inclinations or obligations that dictate our acts without second thought. If one’s duty was to preserve their life because it is of what is required, one will not do it because it is required but because one is obligated. And such that if one is even miserable or taken by life with sorrow, even if one wishes for death, one will not do so because one’s life may require him/her to preserve what one can. If one can love their life without complaint even after they wish for death, they are acting upon obligations.
Some type of a preface.
Philosophy is nothing but truth and wisdom, that our lives became dictated by nature, that we aim to acquire some form of evidence because we fear of being skeptics. We are attracted to paradoxes, contradictions, mistakes, because we feel obligated to fix them. What then occurs is multiplied skepticism; accumulated levels of high doubt.
What causes this is the obscurity of knowledge, of information, and because of that we are uncomfortable. Because we are finite, mistakes are expected. And because things are infinite we would hope that there are no mistakes. Since infinite cannot be fully understood, nature tells us not to penetrate the surface for the reasons of better understanding.
We should not blame ourselves (sometimes) just because of our natural state. If we picked up the dust and complain that we cannot see, the blame cannot be dealt on any other but yourself. But because understanding our knowledge is blinded by opposing forces we must not find blame in its motivations to keep us confined but we must use this as a reason to break the cask.
The limitation on the things we do know is deserving of our pain, deserving to be discovered for its constant hiddenness embarrasses us. To better understand our ability to retain knowledge requires us to never let things go.
It is not without hope that one should enter into or submit themselves to try at articulating the foggiest of ideas. The process can grow discouraging as what started off as basic knowledge transforms into something we now know nothing about.
As a reader of philosophy, one must be evidently aware that it is not all abstract ideas, that logic and metaphysics become the source of abstract thoughts. The human mind is capable of generating abstract thoughts, whether at will or not, from even the simplest of all notions. If one must find good reasons to rationalize then one must be prepared for a long search with no definitive result.
Nothing stands alone and no idea can exist without co-existing along another; in order for balance to occur we must agree that each notion stands on a scale alongside another for said balance. The mind can only frame what it knows; the mind me single out an idea only to abstractly extend in either motion or color.
The mind perceives by sense and if the mind was to have acted upon senses, there are no determining colors, shapes, nor movement. However, the mind does have the ability to match and correspond sounds with movements and ideally, colors with shapes.
Because the mind has a better chance to retain information of similarities, if a person sees a group and the common factors that person A, B, and C shares, then the likelihood of mismatching a name to the person occurs. Because of this, the mind often leaves out the complex compounds that make up an individual person and generalization occurs. And since there are not definitive color, motion, or shaper then there is no possible method that the mid may conjure something natural. For example, the sound of hooves will let the mind think of horses but the call or scream will produce the image of man. If combined, one may think of a man on a horse — more abstractly, the upper torso of a man and the bottom of a horse. This goes back to coexistence. But nevertheless, we are confined to only the learned.