Is he right? How do we reach this level of enlightenment?

>we all want to be famous

Lol no.

And is this dude implying self-improvement is bad?

>we all want to be famous people
Not all, but most. Most of human seek acknowledgement and socialize. The select few percentage (due to difference in evolution) are self sufficient and happy to pursue their own interest.

>difference in evolution

If you mean personality variance, sure

Do you guys even try? The point is that as long as you think, you're bound to do as you think. The "famous people" part is just a detail, a common example. Self-improvement doesnt matter either, since you did so not because you were free, but because you thought it'd be rational to do so.

No I mean, genetic difference. Variations in genetic difference creates the differences. Also known as genetic mutation

I improve my self to chase my desires. It's a rational way to chase my desires, but it's still because I have desires that I want to fulfill. It's the very opposite of "this is fine and I'm going to stop chasing desires"

OP here. It's amazing how everyone gets hung up on a small word that could be substituted with a myriad of other desires. It's also worth noting that Jiddu gave most of his talks in person, so he wasn't exactly refining things and removing generalities to the level one might expect in a book.

In introversion vs. extroversion? Where's the science on that? Iirc, this is one of the few big personality tendencies that has more to do with environment than anything.

What the fuck is this supposed to even mean.

If people think, they're unfree and can only do what they think? Lmao what's the alternative, not think and do what you never thought?

And self-improvement is an act of both freedom and rationality. If you're unfree you won't have the ability to do activities that improve yourself, and if you're not rational then you'll follow your emotions mindlessly.

Following desires is in no way free. Why do you think you want to improve yourself? Why do you even think that what you did was an improvement? Would've you thought the same had you lived a different life? Again, as long as you live and act in accordance to the world around you, you're no more free than the Moon orbiting Earth.

Don't really care about Jiddu, but he seems like a cool guy. Yeah, people certainly do like arguing about details while ignoring the principles behind them

Parents' children can have a wide variance in personality. It has less to do with mutation, and more to do with sexual reproduction increasing genetic variation. There's roughly 8 million different possible combinations of the 2 parents' chromosomes in their children.

>Following desires is in no way free. Why do you think you want to improve yourself?

To maximize the enjoyment of life and help the people I love. Also some of it is just curiosity as to how much I can change myself.

>Why do you even think that what you did was an improvement?
Losing weight to be more healthy, improving appearance, getting more done at work, coming up with plans and turning them into reality is improvement. I fucking hate college freshman level reductionism. "DUDE WHAT EVEN IS IMPROVEMENT" go fuck yourself.

Oh, i see, you're one step ahead of me, already ignoring the absence of free will

I have the free will to decide to do nothing about myself or to improve myself. I am exercising my free will when I take steps to improve myself rather than doing nothing.

Doing nothing and refraining from pursuing your desires is arguably less of an exercise in free will than taking actions toward self-improvement.

>bbc.com/future/story/20130717-what-makes-someone-an-extrovert

Jung's introvert v extrovert was too specific, but his main idea is very much relevant. The idea about introvert/extroversion.

>bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/articles/personalityandindividuality/lemons.shtml
There's even a fucking lemon juice test to find out if someone is an extrovert/introvert.

>psychcentral.com/blog/introverts-you-were-born-that-way/
And its not a "environment" thing either. As you can test out whether a baby will grow up as an introvert of extrovert too.

The main crux for modern identification lies in the dopamine sensitivity of an individual. This is a genetic variance not an environmental one.

>we all want to be famous
Except not really, I want a lot of things, but being famous is not one of them. I would despise being famous. He's starting from a false premise and a grotesque generalization at that, this guy's a moron.

>the moment we want to be something we are no longer free

In that case, freedom is overrated.

Is it really? What's the difference, then? The fact that you'll like the outcome of self-improvement more than you'd like to relax right now?
Okay, since you seem to dislike reductionism so much, let's assume that you DO know for sure that self-improvement is factually better. The question now is, could've you done the irrational thing? You know, the one thay you CHOSE not to do because of its irrationality? Of course, at the moment of choice the possibility of either of the two outcomes seems to be equally likely. What my take on the question is, since you're bound to do as you think is right, with the incompleteness of information avaliable taken in cosideration, the outcome of every "decision" that you'll make is predetermined.

>The fact that you'll like the outcome of self-improvement more than you'd like to relax right now?

Yes of course.
>The question now is, could've you done the irrational thing? You know, the one thay you CHOSE not to do because of its irrationality?
The irrational thing being laziness and stagnation?

>What my take on the question is, since you're bound to do as you think is right, with the incompleteness of information avaliable taken in cosideration, the outcome of every "decision" that you'll make is predetermined.

So before we go any further, I'm a determinist. I believe everything is already on a set course and will play out in one predetermined chain of cause and effect.

BUT, I know that acting as if I have no free will is a self-fulfilling prophecy. That within that framework, it's still necessary to take as much control over your life as possible.

At this point i'm not sure i'm able to understand you. Okay, so you're a determinist, that is a shame since i hoped somebody would change my mind. How can you believe in both determinism and "wanting to take as much control over your life as possible" though? Is there some trickery hidden from me involved?

>How can you believe in both determinism and "wanting to take as much control over your life as possible" though

Because it is irrelevant in regards to your own behavior.
if you behave and think as if you have no free will, you will act differently than if you believe you do. it's a self fulfilling prophecy to say "I have no free will"

Dont you also agree with OP, then?
Regardless, i obviously dont pretend like anything i could do would change the fact that i have no will to do anything besides doing what i'm meant to do. Guess there wasnt a disagreement to begin with, stupid me

>Dont you also agree with OP, then?

On the meta level determinsm is true. On the practical, how you shape your thoughts and behaviors level, determinism is false. You can make conscious decisions that take you down different paths, or you can just float through life. Those are real decisions with real effects that you can make.

Determinism is always there, just because we can't see it doesn't mean it goes away.

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that I have the ability to choose between spending the rest of my day in my room, or doing something productive.

Dont you also make decisions while "floating through life"? Obviously, you're less of a person in our understanding that way, but you still end up with nothing truly yours.
Also, i dont know if that needs to be stated, but i also dont think that time, or its division, exists. Accepting determinism sort of makes time meaningless, as with a predetermined timeline the only real application of it is to help people understand continuous processes.
Something that hasn't happened can not happen, right?

Dude was handsome af in his prime

>muh void worship

I get not being ruled by thought-diarrhea of the mind but the empty vessel of consciousness bullshit seems like just another way of coping

You'd have to show some powers over causality to do that. On top of that, you'd have to show some sort of agency, that's two layers of problem.

user, you could sit in bed all day wondering if people have agency over themselves or you could get up and prove it. People have the ability to make conscious decisions, that is not debatable.

Faulty assumptions can create any sort of results. It doesn't make it true.

Are you telling me that you are utterly incapable of coming up with a few actions and choosing one to perform right now? If so, you should be put in a psych ward.

I can believe a God gives me the power to walk. I can then walk. Thus "proving" god gave me the power to walk and the existence of God.

This argument doesn't work for atheists and those who practice rationality.

Forgot to add

>how is that related

I can believe an external agent with power over causality gives me the power to walk. I can walk. Thus "proving" the existence of the agency and the power over causality.

The argument is flawed is what I'm saying. Its an elementary mistake to engage in an argument with flawed axioms.

>If I pretend my free will came from an external actor without evidence, then it's true!

God you're insufferable.

It does rob you of your freedom. Consider the fellows over at /r9k/.

All the pathologies you have listed are either a product of desire or a product of aversion (another form of desire).

Prime example: ''I wouldn't have lost weight''

How do you do this? Your desire to lose weight created an antithesis to your desire for food. The outcome was you losing weight. Now, if you became so averse to eating, that you would starve yourself, this would be bad, the same being as if you gave in to your desire for food. What is the optimal synthesis here?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Way
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taṇhā

The term ''desire'' here, is much more broad. Think of yourself as a cluster of desires and aversions, conditioned and inherited. Now, if you are to take Buddhist metaphysics seriously; then this desire has metaphysical implications in the sense of reincarnation. If you are to reach a state where there is no point of *attachment* then you reach nirvana. Of course, I am not a scholar, and there are more complexities in various schools of thought, but there it is.

Fucking gibberish. Not everyone wants to be famous, and no one is 'free' to begin with. What does 'free' mean? Are we ever 'free' from the genes, people, and environment that shape us?

Attached: 1518843412253.jpg (1129x1200, 118K)

What he was saying, is not reductionism.

> or you can just float through life.

Nigga, you WISH you could just float through life.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei

>On the practical, how you shape your thoughts and behaviors level, determinism is false.

Point to me to the homoncolus which shapes the stream of thoughts. Could you at will feel, say, absolute terror, if the stimulus for it was not present? Who is in control if your memory recall functions or not at any given moment via association?

I do agree with you about it being irrelevant whether we have free will or not, on a micro level. But I will say that it can have beneficial aspects to it, in the formation of ethics. It takes a lot of work to attain ''free will'', just pretending to have it is not enough, for this I can cite various meditation and mindfulness techniques. And you will not be able to do this, if you ignore the deterministic processes which create ''you''.

when we die

So was Alan Watts. Just goes to show that everyone can suffer immensely. Alan actually drank himself to death IIRC.

Are you the Hindu version of that Evangelical poster we have over here?

I actually believe in something like that image you posted.

What on earth makes you think I am hindu?

That post you made about Hanuman it the other thread.

That wasn't me, I just made a basic statement about dharma in this thread anyone with a tiny bit of familiarity with hinduism would know

What about Daoism?

I can tell it was you from the pattern of the words you use, something I am an internationally renowned expert in.

I would like to hear about this.