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
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 is 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.