The voice of desire can be intoxicating. It can cloud all reason until the only thing left is the will, the thing doing the experiencing. The object of which the voice of desire and reason speak. So, this calls for the follow up question: how do we prevent ourselfs from being succumb to the voice of desire? Better yet, why even attempt to prevent being succumbed? The voice of desire is one that us clearly got its uses. It speaks to what the body requires. It is the same voice that demands food when hungry, water when thirsty and more sleep when tired. Having a faculty such as this clearly could be said to have its purpose as a reminding mechanism to essential survival requirements. However, it’s limitations are that there can be no limitations on its requirements beyond that of what is actually required to preserve a health body. This is where the faculty of desire fails and that we have been imbued with the gift of reason. The voice which is able to analyse a set of external circumstances or internal ideals and apply them. The limitations of this voice, however, is that it takes practice to feel its authority. To have it command stronger than the voice of desire. Especially since the voice of desire fails to hear reason as a justification to any unmet needs (whether proper needs or fanciful). The nature of desire is that it can often grow as a person’s means and needs are met. It is never truly satisfied and therein lies part of the human condition which philosophers have quarrelled for centuries. Especially eastern philosophers such as Buddah who recognised that suffering was the cause of unmet desires.
I don’t think we can know necessarily whether or not there is a God. As it would go to answering the fundamental question which we are not to know. Those who require there to be a God, to me, are a product of the human condition. This requirement for there to be an answer to an absurd world and existence. This is why I often have the view that those people possess a certain naivety. It is well understood that one of the requirements of most religions is “faith” in the existence of the corporeal delusions they purport and while this would be of no effect on me, what cannot be tolerated is the injustices by way of suffering, religion has and continues to cause. All in the name of “faith” (i.e delusion) that there is an answer to why we’re here. It is quite clear from reading historical texts that religion has been recognised as a tool to disseminate philosophy to the masses, a mandatory practice to ensure non interference of rights as contemplated by St Aquinas. But, many religions are still riddled with the edits and biases of the time of their inception which condone atrocious and unkind acts. Due to the idea of “faith”, none of the unkind ideals are called to question which contravenes a sacred philosophical principles of questioning oneself, the reason for their action or inaction and the effect of either. “Faith” mandates a belief in the authority of scripture and its sacred text which it is often derived. While value can be retrieved in all religion and all religion contain at their core messages of love, kindness and tolerance; they are lost to the corruption of their time. Mandating hatred of sexualities, differences in beliefs and often causing payment to non-elected higher ups. I mean, has any true believer of Christianity questioned the scheme of donations to the church (which remain tax free)? Why must we get married for it to not be a sin? These all seem like mechanisms to control a populace through utilising the inbuilt human fear of the unknown and death is a shared unknown. People will do anything for relief of that fear, even at the cost of reason. Now, to reiterate, religion does have qualities that are positive but, it’s inherent immutability and rigidity prevents any real and necessary developments in its doctrines which ultimately causes more suffering than it solves. Who’s to say whether more sufferings would have been caused in a history that had an absence of religion? That much is fair to argue on either side. However, in a highly reasonably and rationally run society that we live in now where the authority of laws have persuasive power like never before then we must consider questioning the future use and need of religion (or the lack thereof).
The only time you can anything is now. If you constantly do now what will benefit you later, you will always be surrounded by the benefits of your well spent time.
Marcus Aurelius says be tolerant of others and be harsh with yourself. Hold yourself to a high standard it is what is within your control. Exerting your will to force someone else to do or not do something is unable to change an internal view. Is there a duty to put someone on notice for bad behaviour?
Disregard what you think you feel at the time. If you are doing something which will benefit you in the future, especially ones with a surety such as exercise, completely disregard the voice of desire. Do not let it continue to ramble and to poison your reasoning with wistful remarks such as “you can do it later” or “you never take time off!”. This voice is only one which seeks to displace the voice of reason