This forum is a post-your-picture forum.
Where does philosophy grow best? Among people where wars are frequent and close, like in ancient Greece, where there is no permanent safety like in Rome. Just one generation which did not had a close war experience falls so low that it hates it’s own neighbors who came from dangerous areas. And it was lately quite clear to me that Europeans “are stupid and have money, while we are smart and have no money”.
So, this proves also the connection between the man of danger, the warrior, with the man of wisdom and knowledge. I have enough evidences that people who practicise martial arts will never take distance from me like others who are simple conformists. There is a clear line between those who only want to adapt and those who go for their will. That line is called philosophy and differs from sociology which is from the conformists.
There may be such a line, but what i do not understand is, how you define adaptation as non philosophical and only going for your will as true philosophical?
Does that not also imply that who adapt/follow Nietzsche, are also non-philosophical!
Or,i am missing something important!
Zin, people like this just make me think of how sad it is that they can’t compartmentalize this one aspect of philosophy, (the Nietzsche stuff) and experience more of life than there is to be seen through this narrow lens. It’s both saddening, and obnoxious.
People who can recite philosophy from textbooks passage from passage but don’t actually understand what it is they’re reciting and cannot think independently on their own mental prowess or faculties.
I am more than willing to debate you Cezar while holding you in a headlock. We can discuss Aristotle, your failure to join the French Foreign Legion as a natural inferior, and why your always a decadent pussy masquerading wrongly as a member of the old nobility… your a adopted pet of a old lady, that is it. What kind of philosophy can we expect from such a easily scared misfit, inferior in wit and body? An old decandent man, a slave to his perversions.
These are henids, malformed, incomplete ideas - but Historyboy, you are clawing at something deeper and are on the right track.
War can also reduce the quality of philosophy, like many things there is both a positive and a negative. The middle east is full of war, yet it is philosophically backwards, they are even trying to ban chess over there.
But I would say, Solid Snake is portrayed as a fairly deep philosophical kind of guy.
Sensitivity, nobility, are all associated with the desire to combat the rude, and the wicked.
There are a lot of rude and ignoble people out there who cannot be reasoned with, who generally ruin your day, and so the noble, sensitive response is first negotiation, then combat.
Since most of these rude people REFUSE negotiation (ie. cowards who block you on Facebook without warning)
The only sensible conclusion is war.
For example, the Chinese government, people who abuse animals, or Kim Jung 2, are unreasonable, and cannot be reasoned with, therefore war is the only logical alternative.
But perhaps you confuse the boat for the river and river for the boat.
Warriors may often have a correlation for being better philosophers, because their psychology is more strategic, mechanical, and well thought out. However, there is also the danger of them becoming Clingons.
War is not necessarily needed for supreme philosophy though.