How many different apps do you have open on your phone right now? How many tabs on your internet browser? And how many different e-mail threads and Facebook messages? If you’re like most people, you probably have a lot of each of these – too many, in fact. The myth of multitasking has seeped into […]Do you know about the myth of multi tasking?
Since the subject of meditation is less clear than I anticipated I decided to sum up a description of a Buddhist to save you 1 1/2 hours of listening. The core of the Buddha’s way to liberation consists in the practice of meditation It was by meditation that the Buddha reached enlightenment himself and it […]A summary of Buddhist meditations
Since meditation has taken social media by storm and everyone is trying to do some kind of meditation, this post clarifies in details the differences between each type of Buddhist meditations.
To those of you who are interested in meditation (especially in hard times of pandemic and financial instability and insecurity), I urge you to check this post of my expert friend and learn step by step meditation.
Henri Bergson was a French philosopher (1859-1941) and one of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century. His philosophy revolves around motion, change and evolution.
His work in Time and Free Will: An Essay on the Immediate Data of Consciousness showed the fundamental difference between time as perceived by consciousness (la durée or duration) and the objective mathematical time read on a watch. Consciousness doesn’t perceive the instant or the objective present, for it is infinitesimal. It perceives a duration which can be very long or very short.
For example, if I am working unwillingly for one hour on my blog, time doesn’t fly. On the contrary, if I love what I am doing on my blog, I will not feel the time passing by. Although, the time, in both cases, is one hour and the same according to the watch, I live it, thus perceive it, differently.
Bergson analyzed the awareness that man has of his inner self to show that psychological facts are qualitatively different from any other, charging psychologists in particular with falsifying the facts by trying to quantify and number them.
Based on this analysis of the subjective time versus the objective time, he somehow criticized Albert Einstein for keeping the theory of relativity external to the human mind without taking into consideration one’s inner perception of the time, which is also relative.
Consciousness is memory and therefore a link between past and future through its duration. This empirical complexity is what makes human free beings, forever preserving the past and anticipating the future.
The title struck me. I never guessed that happiness could be the enemy of depression. Furthermore, a continuous sights of happiness, like in social media, can cause depression.
To whom it may concern, it is quite a special article, non traditional and insightful. Check it out by clicking on the link below.
Let’s say we are all going in a way down the dark road of depression. I sincerely hope not 🙏
When are we truly ourselves? When do we express our inner self? Philosophers tried to give eventual answers to these questions.
We are ourselves when we are alone and meditating said Descartes. Rousseau preferred walking alone in nature to think of his condition and therefore to be himself. Thoreau thought we are authentic when we disobey, while Heidegger believed we express our inner self when we look at death. To Nietzsche, we are ourselves when we deploy our will of power.
What if we are ourselves in pleasure and pain?
In pleasure, one forgets oneself and frees from all conscious and social boundaries. Even when one wants to control it, pleasure takes over. Pleasure as a way to be in touch with the true inner self, was evinced by philosophers for pleasure can often become an obstacle to rational thinking. This is honestly why I think that pleasure is more honest than any type of thinking: no more discipline, no more social values, no more taught logic! Therefore, pleasure (which can’t be felt intensely the same by two different people) is the pathway to our authentic self.
Also pain is a crucial experience of our true self. Put aside some happy few empaths out there, no one can feel the same pain like someone else. The tragedy of pain is it makes us lonely and alone, no matter how much we are surrounded by loved ones. Therefore again, pain makes us express our true inner self.
Be aware of laughing loud or crying out loud; these are the stairway to your divine soul.
This question keeps coming back: how come can we put ourselves in other people’s shoes and predict their future and we can’t do it for ourselves?
The alter ego: as in the other me; the other one who is similar to me and yet so different. Same in humanity and different in humanity too, relationships are meant to be difficult. So are the relationships we have with ourselves.
Imagine someone asking you for an advice regarding their life. Foreseeing their future in general, pinpointing their talents and their flaws, predicting about their love affairs etc., is all so easy. However, one can’t do it for themselves.
To be intuitive about one’s own life, this requires an internal journey to meet the inner alter ego. Seeing oneself from the inside out requires facing the veil of emotions and some undesirable truth. It’s never too objective to be clear.
That’s why we can be deceived in trying to foreseeing our own future but never ever bored.
Imagine this scenario: some Stone Age men saw one of their companions lifeless. They tried to wake him up, kick him, and hit him. He remained motionless. Next days, they saw him decomposing. Then they understood that next would be one of them!
Being conscious of finitude is the human tragedy. It gave birth to the quest of knowledge, of meaning of life and the desire of immortality. Religion became the answers to rationally unanswered questions and one’s hope for a second life. Philosophy started as the rebellion against the pathetic human condition, as beings conscious of their limited time. Science gave us some explanations. Our survival instinct pushed us to gather and form social and political systems.
Consiousness of finitude gave us culture as the sublimation of our reptilian brain and life-driven libido. Hence romance and poetry, litterature and art, story telling and imaginary lives to combat death with more life infusing actions and beliefs.
No matter how prepared one is in front of death, when it hits, it is hard to cope with. Death is the only truth. Meanwhile, we get by living, filling days and years with the best we could. Most of the time, we forget that we will all die and we fight over unessential matters. Life is a beautiful lie and that is another truth.
“Death is the most certain possibility”, said Martin Heidegger.
An identity is a complex concept made of different layers: nationality, racial, ethnic, religious (of course!), cultural, subjective…
While most of the aforementioned have always been issues unfortunately, the subjective identity remains the core understanding of identity.
All national and supranational identities tend to reduce a person, including her being, feelings and experiences, to one aspect: race, religion, culture etc. How fair is that? And how or why do people accept it? Why do we agree on being reduced to a politicized inherited character? A human being is beyond a definition of words.
The subjective identity is given by consciousness and reflexivity. It is synonymous to the internal world of thoughts, memories, fears, anxieties, desires and so on. As these elements keep on changing throughout the years, an identity is neither set, nor rigid. It’s not given once and for all. It is constantly evolving. Therefore, reducing this complexity into one tangible aspect for political or social reasons is a paradox to its essence.
That being said, tell me why are we still fighting each others?
What if the consciousness is created by the brain to keep track on our daily activities? A question to shake the traditional concept of consciousness inherited by the 17th century French philosopher Rene Descartes. Keith Frankish, the author of this article posted below, takes a round on neuroscience analysis on the phenomenal consciousness.
He takes an example of looking at an apple. The visual perception stimulates sensory reactions in our brain that enhances our understanding or action on the apple: the colour of it, how to eat it, what to do with it etc.. These neuronal reactions, known as consciousness, are created by the brain to tackle down our activity with the apple.
In other words, consiousness is pretty much compared to the pill taken by Neo in the movie The Matrix. A different pill would give a different experience. Meaning, a different perception would give a different “consciousness”, or different neuronal stimuli in a neuroscientific jargon and analysis.
Frankish adds to the neuroscientific observation, the idea of perception and its effect on thinking which we can see in Hume’s empiricist philosophy and in Berkeley’s immaterialism. Our story is a narrative speculation of our consciousness that is affected by perceptions. Frankish article below is very compelling: