Fascinating how the wisdom of the East for so many has apparently degenerated into escapism much like Christianity has degenerated into Christendom.
And the chief claim to fame of this assumed virtual god is in the ability for righteous indignation expressed through the medium of religious/philosophical bigotry.
You can’t write this stuff. It is too good. 
True. I was just expressing solidarity with those who see a problem with this forum. I think you probably do too, but you also have the patience to put up with it.
I think Thirst would make a great moderator. Intellegent, more objective than most, and not pushing her own agenda so much that she’s blind to her own bigotry. Plus, she swears like a coal miner!
Thirst for mod in 2006, you know it’s the right choice…!
Hi thirst
You can pretend all you like and claim victim but that tactic may only work for Palestinians. I don’t care about Nick and his bullshit either. When he “bullies” you don’t sit there and bitch about it while others are “bullying” in other threads, forums. You only whine about being “bullied” because it involves you and your religion which happens to be so in line with Bob’s pseudo-christianity mystic bullshit.
First of all, what is a bully? From dictionary.com. I find this one the most appropriate for this discussion:
I refer to the human condition in the classical way in the context of Plato’s cave. From this perspective we are nothing in relation to our potential and continually sacrifice human potential through the glorification of this nothingness.
I can see how this could appear intimidating or overbearing since it is not flattering. I admit that I am also in the cave but with at least a growing awareness of its restrictions. But is referring to it really bullying in the context of philosophic discussion? Have you ever noticed me being openly rude and blindly attacking as is normal for bullying?
Suppose I was a Buddhist and insisted that if one doesn’t awaken to the human condition they are doomed to continue suffering on the wheel of samsara. This is also intimidating and certainly not flattering. But should it be seen as bullying because it is not politically correct to question the artificiality of self esteem?
I will agree that I am not politically correct speaking of IMO unpleasant psycho/spiritual realities and a budding Black Sheep which wrongly could be interpreted as intimidating but where specifically do you find me as a bully?
One more thing.
Faust likes to intentionally demean Simone Weil as a lightweight and only good for slogans on greeting cards. Is that bullying? Is it considered bullying if I respond by pointing to her similarities with Wittgenstein by saying he will probably not be interested? This gets very metaphysical. What the author of this book is explaining is very unique and not for everyone. I do not think it bullying to suggest that it could only appeal to the few that feel the depth of what is suggested in the book.
I’m a little behind in my reading now but soon I will buy it and it will be tough getting through it. It is rough stuff I appreciate the basic ideas and will pursue them. Is it elitist to suggest that most won’t? I would not put down anyone for not being interested. My concern is for discussing such ideas with those that are. If this is considered bigotry and elitist, I plead guilty.
Hmmm. Am I intentionally demeaning Weil? I am intentionally demeaning her ability as a philosopher. I like to think that everything I write is intentional. I have been much rougher on Wittgy. I think that both of them tried to be good thinkers. Wittgy is a master of the patently obvious - when he makes sense at all. They were probably both very nice people. I do not really know this, however. I have read most of Wittgy, because he is so trendy, so oft-discussed. I see no value in his work. Both of these people are dead. They cannot be bullied. I find it difficult to believe that they would consider themselves bullied by me in any circumstance.
Neither had a great idea between them. Unless you say so - what that idea is, and why it is great. You have yet to state either. That philosophy is a love of wisdom is not a great idea, it is a philo 101 definition.
That we are nothing in relation to our potential is not a great idea, it is a truism, albeit an overstated one.
I keep hearing about great ideas, but I never hear the ideas themselves. Your point, Nick, seems always to be that you’ve got a point. I have made an earnest effort to discern what that point might be. I am trying to take you seriously - truly I am. But your real point always seems to be that you understand things that others do not, and are not even capable of. I know no way out of this. If I am incapable of understanding your great mind, then why should I even try? But try I do.
(Mast - I think I will respond to you much later. Want to get that copy of the Tao that tent mentioned. May be able to do that today, as I am back in civilisation for the moment.)
Faust
True, but since so many great minds have become so impressed with her and very scholarly books have been written on her ideas, I feel I have the freedom to disagree and say perhaps you don’t understand her depth.
But for some reason you cannot do this. You cannot say that perhaps you don’t understand her but instead that you do and find her mediocre if not worthless. This is your opinion but I agree with these others.
Everything I’ve written about seriously has to do with man’s potential for conscious evolution and the imagination that denies it. That is the central point. An idea is made great for me because it touches on this concept of indicating a higher human potential of which we have glimpses of… The whole cave analogy is about this conscious awakening.
But to become specific about such things is impossible in a hostile environment that values arguing and tearing down so I am cautious about presenting new ideas and keep it general…
This is a great idea. but to allow it to live requires it being put into perspective. By itself it is too shocking. But yet understanding such things allows for the following to become meaningful:
Appreciating such ideas requires a perspective that includes universal laws that connect everything. So for such ideas to really begin to make sense they must be put into a larger context in which everything is connected in a universal context or organic whole…
But such thought is very un-hip and it is more fun to argue about Bush. So such ideas are dead in society but kept alive by a minority that is still interested in such questions created by the contemplation of great ideas such as these. Again, they are only great for those willing to ponder them. If it is more fun to argue over details without attempting to experience the whole they exist within, then all that can be hoped for is the continual joy of arguing. If one begins to love wisdom, they may experience the wholeness in which these details exist as fractions of the whole. In this way ideas produce the experience of “meaning.”
I hope I’m wrong but I believe that majority public acceptance of the value of great ideas is dead and, as Prof, Needleman suggests, is replaced more and more by materialism in the hope of providing meaning to fill the void from the loss of such ideas. What happens when it doesn’t do so can become very dangerous for mankind but I do hope for the best.
Nick - you are, at bottom, suggesting that if I understood, I would agree. Surely you do not mean this. I do not accept any appeal to authority as a legitimate philosophical activity - that is pure religion. You seem to define “great minds” as those that agree with you. That’s about as circular as it gets. This produces a disagreement, but not a philosophical one. Any two people may disagree. It’s tha basis of that disagreement that makes it a philosophical one. Or not.
I can match you “great mind” for “great mind” in disagreement with almost anything. Great minds have nothing to do with it. This is merely an appeal to authority.
It is always possible to get specific - the hostility of the environment is irrelevant. Buck up. This is philosophy.
Appeciating the ideas you present requires that we appreciate the ideas that you present. That is what you have just said - these ideas are participant in certain unnamed laws that state that these ideas can be appreciated. You have created a virtue by virtue of a virtue. That is not philosophy, it is dogma. Dogma is not a dirty word, but it is not philosophy.
“Everything is dependent on everything else” - How? If you don’t say how this is so, if you don’t describe the condition, this is a greetingcard caption.
“If people were different, everything would be different” - is this subjectivism? If the earth blew up, how would the most distant star be affected? I need to know this to know the meaning of this pronouncement. So far, my next breath will be more shocking than what you have said.
I have no interest in your bellyaching about “how people are”. So I’m leaving that alone.
Faust
It is not that great minds agree with me but I agree with some people considered great minds by the quality of their ideas. It is these ideas I find myself in agreement with. Of course we may all be nuts but I don’t believe so. It seems more logical to continue to try and understand.
You value disagreement and I value striving for agreement as to the nature of the Whole in which all these disagreements exist. This is why philosophy for me is the love of wisdom.
No, I said that it would be impossible to go deeply into certain what I consider to be, “great ideas” because they build on one another and begin to exist together as an organic whole.
It is like the old story of the blind men describing an elephant. Everything is interpretations. But if somehow their sight returns, they will see the same thing. This is what great ideas strive to do. They strive to give sight of existence we are normally blind to.
When I was younger most religion and philosophy was aggravating because it was relatively easy to spot flaws which always annoyed people. Then I discovered that there was actually religion/philosophy out there where I could not find the flaw. Now for me this experience was such a shock that it even inspired gratitude. Existence gradually began to make more and more made sense. All my questions became normal in this context.
But this can only come through a broad expansive presentation of universal purpose and man’s purpose within it where the organic whole becomes visible as a skeleton. It was for me. Then it becomes simple to fill in the parts since it all fits. Of course I may be wrong but I go by the logic of the position and a certain quality of emotion experienced as the logic is revealed. So I continually try to verify.
Who is bellyaching? What is there to bellyache about?
The ones that bellyache are the ones speaking of world peace and cooperation and complain why this or that guy gets in the way. That is bellyaching. I suggest that all these cycles happen as by law they must. It is like someone bellyaching about the weather and that we’ve had a lot of rain. Is it better to bellyache or carry an umbrella? Logically it seems better to carry an umbrella unless the weather is really controlled by your ex wife in which case the situation is hopeless. Buckets will rain on your head one way or another.
I don’t see the sense of arguing details and avoiding pondering the whole if the goal and ones perceived value of philosophy is the experience of understanding and wisdom. Our aims are different. But I make no claim on being normal so I am too suspicious to claim superiority.
Nick - it is your assessment that they are great minds. If it’s not your assessment, then it doesn’t matter, anyway - it would still then be some appeal to authority. I am beginning to think that you do not understand the phrase “appeal to authority”. Either that, or you are being deliberately obtuse. I’m beginning to think that this is going nowhere.
To say that I value disagreement is, the way you say it, to imply that I value this exclusively. This is merely dishonest of you.
Again, I am hearing references to great ideas, but not the ideas. And I am hearing excuses. This is not big-boy philosophy.
And more claims about yourself and others, and the difference, that amount to more excuses not to answer my questions. I think I have allowed you to waste enough of my time.
I can claim that I tried.
I think the important lesson of this thread is thread-crashing and etiquette.
You’ll forgive me Faust, but I for one do like etiquette with morality. Correct behaviour is just that. And this thread clearly shows an absence of it.
Drift is the only member of his religion on this board, I am the only member of my religio-philosophy (see Mast’s comments on the non-religiosity of eastern religions). While I am sure most members of the board know our stance on these issues, I would not describe either of us as bellicose posters. I certainly don’t feel oppressed, because I have never invited the situation.
Sure, occasionally I’ll crash a Daoist thread with a few questions. Perhaps I’ll even quibble a bit, since, while our language may be similar, our concepts are fairly distinct. There is a little back-and-forth, and at the end, I think both sides have learned a thing or two.
Similarly, I’ll occasionally crash a Christian thread. I try to remain as respectful as possible (Sorry Ucci, I’ve been rude to you on several occasions and that is my fault) while I try to wrap my head around this thing which-I-find-distasteful. Now, I try not to crash these threads and start offending everyone – there is no benefit in that. I don’t even crash the threads and start explaining where Christianity has it wrong and Confucianism has it right. That isn’t useful. First, no one would listen to me if I adopted such an approach and two, I certainly would not have learned anything by doing it.
And I guess, to me, that is what ILP is about. This is the internet folks, we aren’t going to convince anyone of our viewpoints here. Instead, we are here to learn. That is how I measure the worth of other ILP members: what can they teach me. I’ve learned a lot here, from many posters. However, those who are too seriously pushing their agenda where it isn’t welcome do not teach anything.
One thing I would recommend, Nick_A, is that rather than using Weil as a weapon, use her as a tool. I don’t say, “You are wrong because the Book of History clearly gives an example where . . . blah . . . blah . . . blah”. Instead, I will use Confucian texts to shed light, in a useful manner (I hope), on what is already being discussed. Rather than going against the grain, go with it. You’ll meet much less resistence and you’ll end up with a superior product.
Well, Xunzian - sometimes morality precludes etiquette. Sometimes the two are in opposition. But that’s another debate. Personally, I cut posters more slack if they are at least honest. And if they have something substantive to say. And there are ways to find these things out. Nick has not demonstrated that he is doing more than appealing to an authority that he has chosen, and chosen for reasons that he has not demonstrated.
This is okay for pure religion - but Nick makes a different claim. He is not claiming Revealed Truth - he is claiming a philosophical stance. That is a higher standard. His lack of etiquette doesn’t bother me - strictly a personal view. His lack of philosophy does. This is a philosophical criticism itself and not a “personal” one. When we critically read any thinker, we must make the same kind of judgements, or we may as well be reading “Oliver Twist”.
But that does not mean that I disagree with your view entirely.
That notion about not convincing each other of our view - that is another matter. If we learn here, then someone teaches us - even if this is more usefully seen as teaching ourselves. An entire sea-change in our thinking is not required to make the claim that we do convince each other, to an extent and from time to time, of our views - some of them. Philosophy is an activity, not a thing.
Faust
The way I try to appeal to authority is to learn of additional variables in relation to the question at hand in the cause of understanding. More often people appeal to authority to answer questions and provide decisions and beliefs. Do you see the difference?
OK your move. How do you define philosophy and what is the value of disagreement within that definition?
I tried to answer your question on Great thoughts but since we have a different premise to begin with, you do not accept the answer. Here is the same answer from Father Sylvan:
This is what I mean. IMO, what makes a thought great in the religious/philosophical context is that it connects levels of perspectives in relation to wholeness as expressed for example in the Cave analogy and the Buddhist Burning House parable. I believe have had inner experiences of what is being referred to. This idea of “levels” doesn’t interest you but is wisdom for me so this definition for me of Great Thoughts also has no value for you. Such is life. But I’m not avoiding answering.
Every great thinker has tried to do one thing - to destroy that which came before him (or her). This is as true for Jesus (despite his political rhetoric) as it is for David Hume. We see this less in Plato because he was the first philosopher that recorded a comprehensive system - or is at least the first we know of.
Great men destroy that which came before - conceptually, militarily, economically, scientifically, politically - in some way. Despite conciliatory elements, despite constructive elements. To say that disagreement is bad is just blindness to simple facts of history.
Nick - I see what you say about what you’re doing, and I see what you’re actually doing - these are at odds with one another.
Plato was attempting a social revolution. A political one, no less radical than Marx - in fact, there are many parallels between the two. Both conceived of their pargticular revolution as oragnic progress - a natural process, even. The Cave Analogy was part of that effort. Plato had no interest in agreeing with others - he wanted them to agree with him. That is a special case of agreement - and to pretend otherwise is dishonest, even where it is effective. To suggest that Plato cannot be reasonably disagreed with is absurd - even Plato thought this.
Hi Xunian
It might appear this way because of the commotion but where is the attack? It is true that I purposely repeated Tentative’s remarks to demonstrate this selective acceptance of spiritual/philosophic bigotry but is that really an attack? How can the Tao be of any value other than theoretically if we are unable to see and admit these tendencies in ourselves as revealed here? This is a necessary question for taking the Tao seriously.
This is the issue that Simone tackled in herself and the practical value of humility that the cave experience offers. But as suggested by Socrates, it will be rejected and he has been proven right.
This IMO essential truth does not go against the grain in reality but is offensive to egotism.
So the question becomes if this essential philosophical concept should be abandoned on this board for the sake of peaceful theoretical discussion? Should the concern for why we cannot practice what we preach be abandoned as politically incorrect and an affront to our self esteem in favor of pleasing and supportive thoughts.
Perhaps philosophy is expressed now in either argument in the attempt of self justification or wonderful thoughts for the purpose self calming and the original quest for truth is found too annoying for modern life
Maybe so but I still think there must be a minority of budding Black Sheep out there to make things interesting. They exist IRL so do not know why some wouldn’t go online.
Faust
You see things politically and I see them from an inner or esoteric perspective. Jesus nor Plato wanted to destroy anything. In fact it was just the opposite. Their task was to allow those open to it to experience it, not to destroy it
Marx claimed that religion was the opiate of the masses to which Simone Weil retorted as a former Marxist that revolution was the opiate of the masses. Marx is political and expressing normal cave considerations that lead to the same repeating cycles. Simone is coming from the perspective of one who had experiences outside of the cave suggesting that revolutions do not lead anywhere but are just part of a continuing repeating process normal for cave life.
Great Thinkers from your perspective seek to destroy while Great Thinkers from my perspective seek to reveal the human condition. The seeing is the awakening. The destroyers are concerned with their perceived relationship between past and future and the revealers are concerned with the “quality of now.” or the expanse of human perspective.
Plato was not concerned with social revolution but of the quality of now. When this quality of individuality rises society automatically rises in quality. But society now under the control and protection of Mr. Great Beast himself, this idea is no longer possible; at least I do not believe so. So it is the function of the black sheep to retain and leak into society some of these great ideas for the benefit of those who smell the coffee even at the annoyance of the Great Beast.
Nick - this is all just incorrect. There is no use.
Have fun.
Faust wrote:
The Master has spoken. The Great Beast smiles his approval.
The ‘attack’ goes back to the original lesson I said this thread embodied: thread crashing.
While there are some useful parallels between Greek and Hundred-Schools philosophy, merely shouting Greek philosophy does not elucidate anything. While both Daoism and the brand of Christianity you support are esoteric and most likely have a fair amount in common (your views are still very unclear to me), merely stating ‘cave analogy, cave analogy, Simone Weil!’ does not help anyone see this link.
So, I am forced to ask: what have you contributed to this thread? Has it been meaningful? What has been gained?
Which goes back to my comment about people not being here to convince each other, but rather to learn from each other. If I were to crash a thread discussing the merits of the Evangelion vs. the additional Gospels from the Dead Sea Scrolls and there theological implications only to say, “Wake up people! Your invisible friend named God doesn’t exist!” and then justify it with a few quotes from famous philosophers, I would be little more than a troll. I would most definately become a troll when I continued posting, demand that people pay attention to me and my atheism, none of which has anything to do with the topic at hand.
So, I am forced to ask: how has your behaviour been any different from this?
You can deconstruct the views of a thread. You can post why a different model may better represent the situation. I haven’t seen that in your posts, nor have I seen you manage such a criticism with the delicacy required to have people pay any attention to you what-so-ever.
Read the quality of discussion before and after you began posting here. There was most definately a downward trend. Philosophy should illuminate, not obfuscate, yet you manage to do just that.
So, explain to this very slow learner, exatically what/where/how Weil’s philosophy and the cave anaogy better explains the watercourse way.
Hi Xunian
I notice the ian ending. Are you Armenian? If so, I have a lot of Armenian in me as well.
I hope it is meaningful for the astute reader. At the same time this thread was active the Wretched Man thread was also active. On that thread it was hip to thread crash by saying the same things about me.
By me saying the same thing here and getting the reaction it did as compared to the same thing happening where it is condoned just reveals again our hypocrisy. This is a big question in relation to the Tao. Everything sounds wonderful that is said but what about human nature. What is the effect of human nature in regareds the effect of the Tao?
But this is what has happened here and was accepted as the way to be and driven off those that could hold a conversation. This is now the lay of the land.
At one time I was looking to begin a thread on the comparisons of “suffering” from the Christian, Buddhist, and Tao perspective. It could have been interesting but those days are over. Now the idea is to destroy as Faust believes which destroys a meaningful discussion where people are not beginning with agreement…
At least I was proving something important. The best I can do under the circumstances is point out the modern difficulty with the Tao in that our lives are too chaotic to benefit from it as would be normally possible. More often than not people prefer to hide away to remain calm but when situations like this happen, they explode. IMO it is unhealthy psychologically to suppress like that and then explode.
A real conversation would compare the roles of active Attention in their respective practices but those days appear to be over.
The point was made and now it is over. There is a thread going on now about the Tao. Wonderful thoughts but what does it mean in relation to human being and what are its implications? So I’ll wait to see if anyone says something that I find appealing.