Nope. ALL perspectives are welcome if they are shared as a POSSIBLE points of view. Playing the same tired old tape of Weil gets old. Actually I sometimes wonder if we aren’t listening to her ghost. I’m not sure I’ve ever heard your perspective on anything. You peek from under her skirt and you can barely manage a thought without sticking her in our face.
Sometimes, people want discussion without quotations from this or that person. If we want to know what Simone Weil thinks, we can read her. We don’t need to listen to her every time you touch the submit button.
You failed to get the irony of la la land. You used the term, but apparently you failed to see that it is you that has the problem. The rest of us are just fine.
What perspective that cannot be conclusively verified is not by definition a possibility? You just are against certain possibilities that do not appear “wonderful.”
Whenever I quote something by Simone I develop it. Actually most of what I’ve posted from Simone I knew previously from my own path but it is no crime that I agree with her perspective.
I also quote her because I feel it valuable to have her made aware of on a philosophy site since students, if they have the mind for it, can incorporate some of her ideas into their papers that will score points with professors tired of the same ol same ol. If the prof is a woman with spiritual tendencies, it will lead to very good marks.
Also, she is so pure that she embarrasses people. I feel it myself. I read her and am embarrassed with my own inner corruption. Sure she evokes growls but for those truly interested in the spiritual nature, they are healthy growls. For those only concerned with “wonderful” thoughts, her willingness to experience life in the raw will be very annoying. I’m happy that she embarrasses me and this is coming from one often thought of as a male chauvinist. Give credit where credit is due. She had more inner balls than I do.
Why don’t I curse out LA for beginning a thread with a quotation without her own explanation? It is her way and nothing wrong with it. I agree in fact. I could be like you and say we want to know what you think so why do you hide behind the Tao and Osho? I don’t see any problem with it as long as you are willing to discuss it.
Also, by referring to her, I avoid the “stupid Christian” argument since she was more intelligent than anyone here. To think her incapable of logic is obviously and verifiably ignorant considering her education.
I didn’t fail to see it but just made it more ironic. At least I admit to the condition in me. What frightens me is that you, like the great majority, apparently do not sense the problem in yourself much to the joy of the “Great Beast” himself.
This is why you cannot see the necessity of the Alternative Religion Board. It begins with the premise that we are not just fine and feel a hole in the heart that attracts us to want to experience “meaning” and at its highest as “wisdom.”
People that are just fine do not have this need. Yet philosophy defined as the Love of Wisdom allows us to feel and become open to its attraction through ideas that are explored and cherished as nutritional rather than scorned as getting in the way of “feeling just fine.”
So perhaps Simone is right. In order to establish a new board where people that are not “just fine” can feel free to share the Love of Wisdom in mutual pursuit of the experience of meaning and wisdom from the initial admittance that we do not possess it, it will be necessary to “annoy the Great Beast.” Hopefully the annoyance will get in the way enough of feeling “just fine” that this natural separation of intents can be established on different boards.
One board features complaints, condemnation and “wonderful” thoughts while the other is willing to abandon these luxuries in the mutual pursuit of the inner experience of meaning and wisdom, the heart of philosophy, which I believe a minority, even in this day and age, still have a love for.
the essence of the mind is “identifing”. We identify a certain action to achieving a certain goal. Then once this thought process is figured out, it is easier for us to react impulsivly. Yet to learn many ways to do the same thing allows a general perception to the idea, and more frees the mind.
You just don’t get it. You’re so full of your self-proclaimed wretchedness that it is it’s own ego-trip. Hide behind Tao and Osho? The number of times I’ve quoted from either source wouldn’t amount to 1 in 50 of your Simone blah blah blah. It’s too bad, really. I’m sure the woman was a brilliant thinker, but she isn’t the ONLY thinker in the last century.
The fact that I reject your incessant Simone love affair doesn’t mean that all I want is to consider ‘wonderful’. That is simply a poor attempt on your part to diss any viewpoint that contravenes yours.
Simone is obviously more intelligent than anyone here? Your opinion. No one said she was incapable of logic, and who cares? This isn’t about logic or irrationality. Another of your red herring statements.
I frighten you because you think I don’t sense “the problem”? Get off your pedestal. You presuppose you know so much about everyone here simply because they disagree with you.
The necessity of an alternative board? How about this Nick? Why don’t you establish your own website? Why hang around here with all of those who dare disagree with you? Surely with all of this wisdom you have, and the pent up desire of everyone to discuss your issues, you should be able to generate a website much larger than ILP.
Take your last paragraph and turn it into a new website. I’m sure it would be a resounding success.
This is like some kid announcing that he cannot play the piano and would like to learn. Then some others call him an egotist for asserting something like that. Of course he can play the piano. Just imagine it done. You are truly a flaming egotist for suggesting that you cannot play. Whatever comes out will be just “wonderful.”
The concept of the wretched man asserts the human condition of turning in circles where one minute a person can think and do this while at the next, they can do the opposite. Learning to become human requires personally accepting and dealing with the human condition within. Suggesting it as has been done by so many before me and far greater than me makes me an egotist. OK
Of course if you would ever bother to read before venting, it may help. I was referring to A’s criticism of me. She posts many excerpts without any personal comment as with her last post. Why doesn’t it torment me? Maybe because I am willing to accept another’s mode of non violent expression as in posting a quote felt as meaningful. SomehowI could never bring myself to say “Tao blah blah blah” A respect for efforts towards wisdom. But that’s me.
Again,completely missing it. Simone was more than a thinker but an active participant in her thoughts. Many people can sit around thinking wonderful thoughts.they may be thought of as brilliant thinkers but of what value if they cannot do as they say. She could and as such, it could experientially deepen her thought in turn. How many do you know that were this way?
The fact that I reject your incessant Simone love affair doesn’t mean that all I want is to consider ‘wonderful’. That is simply a poor attempt on your part to diss any viewpoint that contravenes yours.
I am the one suggesting the value of communication that is stifled by negativity. Disagreement is fine. The problem, as always, is attitude.
When you equate Man’s “being” and capacity for consciousness with that of a plant, it can only be appreciated by thinking everything is just wonderful suppressing any tendency towards individuality. If not considered just wonderful, a person will consciously seek a way out rather than abandon attempts at consciousness.
You deny the importance and levels of consciousness in the universe. This is why you dislike Plato’s cave analogy and the Burning House parable in Buddhism. They suggest becoming conscious of the human condition. Remaining oblivious to it, if it does exist, and just going with the flow can only be looked at as basking in imagination and thinking “wonderful” thoughts in spiritual matters.
This is fine but what does it have to do with philosophy which by definition seeks wisdom, suggesting we do not have it and becoming conscious of it making “choice” a meaningful word.and not just going with the flow as is normal for a plant. If Plato is correct, what choice does a sleeping person have? Expressions of righteous indignation cannot help in shared understanding of such concerns. It needs a board that asserts the importance of attitude and the personal sacrifices of all similar forms of complaints by participants for the sake of this attitude.
I’ve read her called a fool until I pointed out her qualifications. It was rather funny when Maz did it.
It is not just you but public opinion. It is not a matter of knowing people but only the question of the validity of what is asserted in Plato’s Cave analogy and the Burning House Parable in Buddhism.that Man collectively lives in sleep and what happens in the world is as a direct result of this condition and not an absence of fine speeches. It is either valued or is not. It isn’t whether you agree with me but with Plato and Buddha. The fact that it is not frightens me because of the natural results of the condition sure to occur.
I may very well be kicked out but that is not the issue. You do not want to accept the fact that philosophy is defined as the “Love of Wisdom” Over time it has degenerated into the love of argument. Wisdom flourishes in one environment and argument in another. I would like ILP to feature both approaches so that a person can decide what suits their purposes best. You dislike offering such a choice… The current trend is for protests and argument as is seen in the arts. Only a minority will want to transcend this joy of complaint for the love of wisdom. Yet I believe that real philosophy calls them and they should have a way of experiencing the contrast between wisdom and argument.
I will probably be kicked out within the next few months over this so be patient and you may get your wish.
The “Great Beast” would never allow it. The real value comes from the quality of the lack of success.
Not nearly enough to be important. If I ever can be so truthful and so accurate as to hit the nail so annoyingly on the head, then the powers that be will come to string me up as with Christ and change it wherever possible. I have yet to approach that Christ like level of rejection.
Right now, in pursuit of the Love of Widom, I must be content with as Simone said: “Annoying the Great Beast.”
Quite true. I KNOW from the experience of the history of humanity how all the horrors occur and occur while those with blinders on like yourself insist on spouting “wonderful” thoughts inbetween expressions of righteous indignation that anyone should actually believe that we are as Plato described.
I know how foolish this looks. I know how foolish Plato and Buddha look but still they make sense to me even as the “Great Beast” growls at me.
I have known people who held opinions like this in evangelical circles. The problem was that I had then the opinion, which I have now too, that being annoying becomes more important to such people than being truthful. Those who desire to be martyrs are rarely the right material.
I am missing the detachment that you have suggested to me in the past. How can this discussion be so important to you, that you spend so much time writing 3.89 posts per day just to get your own board? Surely you are slipping into the “vanity of vanities”, caught up in resentment and unable to let go. I am sorry for you and think a dose of your own teaching would do you good.
Yes, I’ve seen this to but the fact remains as pointed out by Plato in the Cave Allegory that those that speak truthfully on the human condition will be annoying simply because it is true. Now you can ask if it truth has value where it is unwanted by the majority.
It is important to me because I learn the nature of resistance and also feel that the minority that have secretly felt this, felt alone, and not had the courage to look into it, become aware that others in the past have felt the same. Simone suggests from her notes:
The point is that someone becoming involved with religious philosophy cannot assume themselves wrong because they are sneered at. It may mean they are close to uncomfortable truths.
But the effects of the “Great Beast” seem strong enough to deny the beneficial attitudes that can help these newbies. At least it is not on my conscience and do not feel that I bastardize Philosophy into the Love of Argument.