Hello,

More of my philosophy about indian meditation and detachment..

I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have also
invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..

I invite you to read the following interesting article about
indian meditation:

Meditation as a tool for Detachment

https://jothivita.com/meditation-as-a-tool-for-detachment/

So as you are noticing that i have just talked about indian meditation
by saying that indian meditation wants us to stop seeking
pleasure of the senses so that to lower our expectations so that
to not be hurted by our desires, and when you read the above article
about indian meditation you will notice that it is saying The following:

"Meditation becomes a tool to help develop Detachment"

So as you are noticing that i was correct by speaking as i was
speaking about indian meditation(read it below), but i think i am a smart philosopher, and i make you notice that there is a logical
analogy between indian meditation and the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, since the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche wanted to
construct the superhumans from humans and this superhuman in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche is a superhuman that has mastery over his emotions and it is a superhuman who takes joy in simply existing,
so as you are noticing that indian meditation permits to attain this
level of control, since when you develop detachment with indian
meditation, it easy for you the process of becoming the superhuman of Friedrich Nietzsche that has mastery over his emotions and who takes joy in simply existing.

More of my philosophy about how to make friends..

I invite you to look at the following video of a beautiful white european women:

I Have No Friends | Why I Don't and How I've Learned to be Okay

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umpAC4pKFV4

So as you are noticing in the above video, that the beautiful women is
saying that she has no friends, but i think i am smart and i will
make you understand my way of doing, so how do you think i am making a lot of friends ? so by logical analogy you have to understand the way of indian meditation, since indian meditation wants us to stop seeking
pleasure of the senses so that to lower our expectations so that
to not be hurted by our desires, so my way of doing looks like
indian meditation but it is not indian meditation, since by talking
to you as i am talking about my philosophy and by posting here my poems
of Love and by showing to you my kind of personality here in internet and by showing to you my thoughts... i am like building universal Love, but i am smart and i know that so that to build universal Love you have to build a trust relationship with others or a high level of trust relationship with others, and when you build this trust relationship with others it becomes easy to become universal Love or it becomes easy to make a lot of friends, so this is why i am building a trust relationship with others here in internet and i know that it is the basis of universal Love, so by logical analogy it is like indian meditation that wants us to lower our expectations by stopping to seek pleasure of senses so that to not be hurted by our desires, i mean that i am like lowering my expectation by being this basis of universal Love even if i have not a lot of friends, since i am confident that it is the right way that make us easily become universal Love and make us easily having a lot of friends. So i am positive.

More of my philosophy about the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and more..

I have just looked at the following video about:

NIETZSCHE - L'exaltation de la vie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeVVtxlg_oE

I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and i think that the philosophy of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche is not good, since
he says that: "C'est la volonté de puissance qui doit s'exprimer, non pas la morale des esclaves ou des faibles.", that means in english: "It is the will to power that must be expressed, not the morals of the slaves or the weak.", and he said that it needs to construct a new man that we call the superhuman, but I think that i am a philosopher that is smart and i am understanding the philosophy of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, and i think that it is an inferior philosophy, because it seeks to construct the superhumans from humans and this superhuman in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche is a superhuman that has mastery over his emotions and it is a superhuman who takes joy in simply existing, so as you are noticing that it is an inferior philosophy, because how can you be able to take joy in simply existing ? so as you are noticing it is illogical and it is as illogical as Stoicism(read my below thoughts about Stoicism) and i think that it is a violent philosophy as Stoicism, this is why the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche is a failure as Stoicism, and here is what i said about Stoicism:

More of my philosophy about my philosophy and about Stoicism and Existentialism..

I invite you to read this very interesting article about philosophy:

Why philosophers could be the ones to transform your 2020

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200114-why-philosophers-could-be-the-ones-to-transform-your-2020

And notice that it says the following:

“The Stoics suggest that what’s most important in order to lead a good life is internal rather than external. It’s about developing the right character, the right state of mind,”

I think i am a philosopher that is "smart", so i make you notice the logical bug in the above saying about Stoicism, and it is that developing the right character and the right state of the mind in Stoicism needs the cultural side that also comes from the external reality and hence from the "purpose" and the "meaning of life", and we can notice that Stoicism is not so smart, because how can we develop self-control and fortitude as a means of overcoming destructive emotions and such without the necessary requirements that have to give enough hope or a meaning of life that gives the necessary self-control and fortitude? so this is why i think that Stoicism as a philosophy is a failure, so what's about existentialism of the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre ? Jean-Paul Sartre said that: "Existence precedes essence" or in french: "L'existence précède l'essence", and it is the central claim of existentialism of the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, but i think that this claim is not so logical, since it is like a debate that asks the question of: Wich is more important, the genetical side or cultural side?, and we have to notice that the essence or nature of a human is "not" enough and it needs for example a meaning of human life and a purpose etc. so then notice that existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre, and like in absurdism of the philosopher Albert Camus, says that human life is absurd, but here again my new philosophy says that human life is not absurd, and read it below.

My philosophy about the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre and more..

I invite you to look at the following video about philosophy:

SARTRE - Le regard des autres

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJIM41TnDHI

I have just noticed by looking at the above video, that it is lacking,
since first you have to understand the following:

Jean-Paul Sartre said that: "Existence precedes essence" or in french: "L'existence précède l'essence", and it is the central claim of existentialism of the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre.

But i think people are not understanding the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, since the functionality of our essence is also our genetics that predetermines to a certain level what is our existence, so the essence that is our genetics is also important, but since the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre was a communist, he has wanted to give much more "hope" by saying: "Existence precedes essence", and i think this also means that
humans are by essence free, and this also means that the human nurture is much more important than the human nature, but it is not truth, so i think that Jean-Paul Sartre has made a big error by saying so. And Jean-Paul Sartre has also accepted the views of the philosopher Albert Camus about the absurdism of existence, but i am a philosopher and here again i am not in accordance with it, since i say that human existence is not absurd, and read my below thoughts to understand my philosophy:

How can you effectively "measure" how to appreciate human life ?

I think the most important thing is to know that we can measure it
relatively or absolutely, so wich one of the absolute or relative
measure is the right way of measuring ? so now you have to know that
i think that the meaning of human life can not be measured like absolutely like was doing the philosopher Albert Camus since you will start to say by measuring like absolutely that human life is "absurd", and this is not good at all, so now you have to understand the very basis of philosophy, that philosophy has to give you the will to survive or the will to live, so then you logically notice that we can say that a human is smart if he is smart relatively to the distribution of smartness of humans or such, but if you start to measure it like absolutely by saying that the smart human is not smart when you look at all or measuring it by all the difficulties and constraints of our world or of our universe, i think it is not the right way to do in philosophy, since you have to give the will to people so that they survive and so
that they live, also you have to give a meaning to human life as
i am doing it in my philosophy(read about it below), so now i
can finally say that you are understanding the how to answer the
above philosophical question since you have to measure how
to appreciate human life "relatively" and "not" like absolutely by looking at how our past humanity was much less advanced than our today humanity etc.. and so the other important thing is to also understand the
basis of my philosophy by reading it below: