What is primary, conscience or love?

[Janoah]

People are looking for what is more important, what is the cause and what is the consequence, what is the main moral rule?
The question is, is there a main principle in human life, and if so, what is it?
There is an opinion that love is primary.
But what is primary, to follow love or follow conscience?

[Impenitent]

the individual is primary

-Imp

[Ansiktsburk]

the individual is primary

-Imp

Yep but the other is in second place. Jesus was pretty clever there.

[Dontaskme]

People are looking for what is more important,what is the cause and what is the consequence, what is the main moral rule?

To extinct the cause out of pure intelligent love and compassion for sentient feeling creatures to never have to endure this hellhole of an existence ever again.

The question is, is there a main principle in human life, and if so, what is it?

Extinction, a permanent end to all sentient suffering and pain, and the torture of living just to die in horrible disgusting ways in the end, to put a permanent end to the retarded pointlessness of it all... IMHO

.

[Dontaskme]

''We can be aware of our Source of Being. The illusions of the mind may hold our love for a time, but to love Love itself, we must turn within. The soul's longing for its true Home is the guide to finding this Love. Follow the lover of the Beloved back upstream to your Source. - St. John of the Cross''

______

Source = Nowhere.

Conclusion: no love, just imagined love, in others words, just a made up fantasy to distract us away from the actual horror that is life for sentient being.

[Ansiktsburk]

What is intelligent love?

[Dontaskme]

What is intelligent love?

Knowledge that pain hurts like hell and only a fool would want to keep repeating that stupid life.

[Dontaskme]

Love works in mysterious ways...we put our animals to sleep to end their suffering, we do it out of love for them.

So lets extend the compassion to humans, and put them to sleep as well.

[trokanmariel]

If it's true, that biological parody's exemption needs publication, that should mean that publication is a symbiosis, ergo, following education is off the cards. But does this inform the choice, between love and conscience?

[Janoah]

Many tons of wind have been milled since I asked this question, but how can one explain that local philosophers have not even tried to answer a really fundamental question?

[Angelo Cannata]

People are looking for what is more important, what is the cause and what is the consequence, what is the main moral rule?
The question is, is there a main principle in human life, and if so, what is it?
There is an opinion that love is primary.
But what is primary, to follow love or follow conscience?

We might think that every philosopher in this world tried to answer your question. Every philosophy of every philosopher can be considered an attempt to answer your question. We should go back to something preceding your question: how will we determine what the main principle in human life is? Which method will we use?
Obviously, there is a risk that this meta-questioning becomes endless, because the we should ask which method we used to find the method. But I think there is no need to worry about this. Actually, we can think that the best method is trying to be aware of our time, the history behind us, and then give the world our contribution to find an answer.
My opinion is that now, today, philosophy finished its function of method of thinking. People don’t trust thinking anymore, because they have realised, consciously or without awareness, that any thought can be radically demolished by applying criticism: all ideologies have
been demolished. People now want experience, life, practice, action. But this is a tragic error, because they are all missing the idea that thinking, if is practiced with good methodologies, is able to be experience. Philosophy was meant as experience by the ancient Greeks (a spiritual experience: see Pierre Hadot), but later it lost this value and it became just thinking, reasoning, logic.
I think that today we need to recover this: thinking not to find truth, but to live an experience, to nourish our soul; I would even say thinking as an art, playing thought exactly the same way you play a musical instrument.
This spirituality would be able to nourish souls and give them motivation for love.
I don’t think that love is so primary, as you wrote, for the following reason: if love was so important, so fundamental, why most people don’t follow it? For this reason I think that spirituality, meant as I said, not the way some people connect it to belief in angels, spirits, energies and so on, is more important than love. Everybody in this world already follows his spirituality, his soul; philosophy can help to build connection of soul with reasoning and thoughts and make it fruitful today.

[Angelo Cannata]

People are looking for what is more important, what is the cause and what is the consequence, what is the main moral rule?
The question is, is there a main principle in human life, and if so, what is it?
There is an opinion that love is primary.
But what is primary, to follow love or follow conscience?

We might think that every philosopher in this world tried to answer your question. Every philosophy of every philosopher can be considered an attempt to answer your question. We should go back to something preceding your question: how will we determine what the main principle in human life is? Which method will we use?
Obviously, there is a risk that this meta-questioning becomes endless, because then we should ask which method we used to find the method. But I think there is no need to worry about this. Actually, we can think that the best method is trying to be aware of our time, the history behind us, and then give the world our contribution to find an answer.
My opinion is that now, today, philosophy finished its function of method of thinking. People don’t trust thinking anymore, because they have realised, consciously or without awareness, that any thought can be radically demolished by applying criticism: all ideologies have
been demolished. People now want experience, life, practice, action. But this is a tragic error, because they are all missing the idea that thinking, if is practiced with good methodologies, is able to be experience. Philosophy was meant as experience by the ancient Greeks (a spiritual experience: see Pierre Hadot), but later it lost this value and it became just thinking, reasoning, logic.
I think that today we need to recover this: thinking not to find truth, but to live an experience, to nourish our soul; I would even say thinking as an art, playing thought exactly the same way you play a musical instrument.
This spirituality would be able to nourish souls and give them motivation for love.
I don’t think that love is so primary, as you wrote, for the following reason: if love was so important, so fundamental, why most people don’t follow it? For this reason I think that spirituality, meant as I said, not the way some people connect it to belief in angels, spirits, energies and so on, is more important than love. Everybody in this world already follows his spirituality, his soul; philosophy can help to build connection of soul with reasoning and thoughts and make it fruitful today.

[Angelo Cannata]

People are looking for what is more important, what is the cause and what is the consequence, what is the main moral rule?
The question is, is there a main principle in human life, and if so, what is it?
There is an opinion that love is primary.
But what is primary, to follow love or follow conscience?

We might think that every philosopher in this world tried to answer your question. Every philosophy of every philosopher can be considered an attempt to answer your question. We should go back to something preceding your question: how will we determine what the main principle in human life is? Which method will we use?
Obviously, there is a risk that this meta-questioning becomes endless, because then we should ask which method we used to find the method. But I think there is no need to worry about this. Actually, we can think that the best method is trying to be aware of our time, the history behind us, and then give the world our contribution to find an answer.
My opinion is that now, today, philosophy finished its function of method of thinking. People don’t trust thinking anymore, because they have realised, consciously or without awareness, that any thought can be radically demolished by applying criticism: all ideologies have been demolished. People now want experience, life, practice, action. But this is a tragic error, because they are all missing the idea that thinking, if is practiced with good methodologies, is able to be experience. Philosophy was meant as experience by the ancient Greeks (a spiritual experience: see Pierre Hadot), but later it lost this value and it became just thinking, reasoning, logic.
I think that today we need to recover this: thinking not to find truth, but to live an experience, to nourish our soul; I would even say thinking as an art, playing thoughts exactly the same way you play a musical instrument.
This spirituality would be able to nourish souls and give them motivation for love.
I don’t think that love is so primary, as you wrote, for the following reason: if love was so important, so fundamental, why most people don’t follow it? For this reason I think that spirituality, meant as I said, not the way some people connect it to belief in angels, spirits, energies and so on, is more important than love. Everybody in this world already follows his spirituality, his soul; philosophy can help to build connection of soul with reasoning and thoughts and make it fruitful today.

[RCSaunders]

Many tons of wind have been milled since I asked this question, but how can one explain that local philosophers have not even tried to answer a really fundamental question?

You haven't asked a fundamental question. It's a nonsense question, as though anything fundamental could be based on irrational sentiments, feelings, and desires, like, "conscience," or, "love." Good grief.

[Ansiktsburk]

Love is not particularly important at all. Conscience is a bit more noteworthy. But there’s stuff that increase mean lifetime and is succesful in decreasing poverty and stuff like that. More potent faculties in the well ordered brain.