the first is in failing to understand the class nature of the oppression, such that it is treated as "black people versus white people" when in reality it is "working class versus billionaire ruling class"

It's white people versus black people in the context of the civil rights movement.

The second error is in thinking there even is a non violent path in the first place, as the root of the problem is Capitalism, it has no conscious or empathy, and will sooner kill us all then give up it's power over us.

But most of the people that make up capitalism do. And nonviolent direct action isn't dependent on its opponent having a conscience or capable of empathy. The fact that so much of today revolves around money and making the most of it is beneficial to the nonviolent path because that creates avenues to resist through where or how we spend our money, or flat out ceasing to participate in xyz market altogether. Like Gandhi did with salt or King did with the smaller businesses of the cities they would target. It's far from perfect but far more effective than people (like you, your loved ones, or even your children or children's children) dying in droves just to accomplish something that potentially could've been accomplished without the loss of a single soul. The more fortunate and therefore the blind don't see this as a big deal because their lack of knowledge of the misfortune of losing someone close to them or of the experience of being in the thick of it themselves because of hate and violence, and the naive convincing their contemporaries that hate and violence is the only legitimate path.

Ultimately, regardless of what metaphysical beliefs one may have, nobodies "God" is going to come down and save us, we must save ourselves, and for that we must have solidarity, work together

King would completely agree with you; he rejected the bodily supernatural resurrection of Jesus, the supernatural and miracles within the Bible, and even the dogma of Pauline Christianity, though he still quotes and considers him plenty. King believed in God in the same way people like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Albert Einstein did. That it's something completely beyond a humans comprehension and ability. Ironically, "scripture" and Jesus when he references this verse in Matt 5:33 when he warns of the woes of taking oaths, would also agree:

"Thus said Jehovah: The heavens [are] My throne, And the earth My footstool, Where [is] this — the house that ye build for Me? And where [is] this — the place — My rest?" - Isaiah 66:1

Oh and I don't post about Tolstoy and the Gospel, I post about Tolstoy sure, amongst other things. Recently however I've been posting the preface of his translation of his interpretation of the Gospels: The Gospel In Brief, which is a more philosophical, objective, less supernatural interpretation of them.

I'm more than interested in conversation, that's why they're all titled "what are you thoughts?" Because I'm genuinely interested in them. And no AI.

You think I could write this well? Thanks, it's flattering that people find his writing and mine even remotely comparable.

I agree, well said. Most people can work and make money, but most people can't utilize their imagination to make something like the nuclear bomb, for example, or the theory of relativity.

I think our imaginations govern over our capacity for inner thoughts and even empathy; people with hyperphatasia tend to be significantly more compassionate in contrast. It also governs over things like fear, anxiety, and depression. My siblings would always make fun of me for being so scared of horror movies and it used to bother me, until I found out something similar would happen to Gandhi as a boy but it was regarding images of demons and the like from religious books of his time. He would suffer from "night terrors" as a result of it. It led me to understand that there's nothing wrong with me, and I'm not necessarily a "chicken," I just have a really big imagination and unfortunately, people who don't couldn't ever possibly completely understand. Leading to their arrogant assumptions to take over and boom, you're just a "baby." Ugh.

Hmm. Interesting. Based on what you're saying here I can't help but humbly point you towards my more allegorical, philosophical interpretation of the story of the Garden of Eden: https://lemmy.world/post/44870805

I'd be very interested in your thoughts on it if you're interested.

I don't agree with the woman part. I think that's just evidence of man's imperfect hands getting a hold of these influences — of a heaven (an afterlife) and a God of some kind. Like the wildly unnecessary incest in Genesis 19:30 for example, that's only there because the Hebrews wanted to invent an origin story for their enemies — that they were born from incest.

Moral-anxiety & moral-learning are more of mothering than of male persuits, like hunting/killing.

I disagree considering it would've been the males duty and responsibility to keep the family/tribe safe from threats of both humans and predators.

The "grace" that we "fell" from

Are you quoting the story? Because words and concepts like grace, the fall, and even sin aren't anywhere to found within it.

I'm not saying that's the case to begin with. Tolstoy in particular has a lot of stigma surrounding him due to a lot of his philosophy consisting so much of Christianity.

Yes but to live how God would've wanted to save ourselves from the double edged sword that is to know anything on top of the knowledge of any knowing being good or evil. And the snake representing that vulnerability to arrogance when something as capable of knowledge is guided by blind arrogant humans as opposed to a God that represents truth, but the truth of selflessness in a way over any dogma; knowledge, thus, consciousness more specifically, where any potential of truth originates.

"For kindness I desired [mercy, as Jesus specifies in 9:13], and not [animal] sacrifice, And a knowledge of God above burnt-offerings [external worship]." - Hosea 6:6

It doesn't matter if selflessness was something we lost, or if it is in God's plan.

I'm not saying it was something we lost, or anything being in God's plan, what I'm saying—this post has nothing to do with either of what you're saying here.

If God wants us to be selfless, why did he first create us to be ignorant of selflessness?

Because knowledge needs to be gained, and what comes along with the knowledge of both selfishness and selflessness is our knowledge of death, that we would've otherwise have been blissfully unaware of. If the snake didn't introduced its influence via its arrogance, then they would've simply listened to God and that would've been that, everyone and everything lives happily ever after. But God not knowing something creeped it's way into knowing so much without its knowing, didn't allow it to happen therefore, it's something that again has the potential of happening to something capable of knowing so much that isn't being guided by God, which the snake obviously wasn't, and wouldn't anyway being so arrogant, so blissfully self-assured.

You're right it's more than likely AI.

It's not AI and I'm sorry you've missed the more philosophical message, but its definitely there, but it's shaped around the book of Jonah, that Jesus (who I equate as a moral philosopher/activist) referred to as "the sign of Jonah."

Very well said! I'm going to be checking out that book you referenced, thanks for that. Consider my community if you're looking for more: https://lemmy.world/c/TolstoysSchoolofLove

https://lemmy.world/post/32217876

https://lemmy.world/post/27295960

Very insightful. I appreciate your perspective, thanks for sharing. I'll dive deeper into it sooner than later.

That's very kind, I appreciate that. Have you considered this one?: https://lemmy.world/post/36602700

I haven't gotten anyone's thoughts on it and I don't how stupid or kindergarten it is. And if it's not to much of a bother, I'd be even more interested in your thoughts on this here; what I like to call "The Basis of Things":

"Vanity of vanities; all is vanity." - Solomon (Doing of doings; all is a doing)

"Morality is the basis of things, and truth is the substance of all morality." - Gandhi (Selflessness and selfishness are at the basis of things, and our present reality is the consequence of all mankinds acting upon this great potential for selflessness and selfishness all throughout the millenniums; the extent we've organized ourselves and manipulated our environment thats led to our present as we know it)

If vanity (a desire to do; a striving), bred from morality (selflessness and selfishness), is the foundation of human behavior, then what underpins morality itself? Here's a proposed chain of things:

Sense Organs+Present Environment/Consciousness/Imagination/Knowledge/Reason/Truth/Influence/Desire/Morality/Vanity

• Vanity is governed by morality,
• Morality is rooted in desire,
• Desire stems from influence,
• Influence is shaped by truth,
• Truth arises from reason,
• Reason is born from knowledge,
• Knowledge is made possible by our imagination,
• And our imagination depends on the extent of how conscious we are of ourselves and everything else via our sense organ reacting to our present environment. (There's a place for Spirit here but haven't decided where exactly; defined objectively however: "the nonphysical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.")

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” - Albert Einstein

Tolstoy is saying much more here than simply "Desire is the root of dissatisfaction." And love, but defined more as our unique and profound capacity for selflessness, is the only desire incapable of dissatisfaction.

Tell me of all the people Don pardoned.

Oh okay. Yeah you're right, it definitely needs plenty of work; think of my posts more as drafts rather then being a representation of something finished. I appreciate your thoughts, thanks!

And you said a few comments back that no combination of words etc. For me, the right combination of words were simply: "We can't beat out all the hate in the world, with more hate; only love has that ability." - Martin Luther King Jr.

Couple that with the context of who said it and I couldn't help but to start taking the words themselves, and the logic it connotates, very seriously, and considering it in a whole new, far bigger way.