philosophy

[haldir]

crucify me

Mat

Not clumsy at all.

What you say about this place is actually the point I was trying to make.

A "philosophy" is not just a mind game but a way of fealing with the reality of our existence.

Problem is that those in power actively dis-enfranchise people by increasing the gap between rich (rulers) and poor (voters) at the same time as they feed the poor (voters) with paliatives to make them respond in the right way (vote for ME).

Studies have shown that if you teach 5 yo kids philosophy, they grow up as reasoning people and are well able to articulate their views. They also perform better during their scholastic career. Wonder why it hasn't been made mandatory in europe and the US? Three guesses.

Now I'm being cynical.

 

[amicus]

Matriarche....

No crucifixion emminent, however...

I would offer that the vast majority of people do have a consistent, basically non contradictory philosophy of life that they live by each day..

And yes, they cannot and will not discuss it, or even put it into words...

That 'philosophy' of the common man is a hodgepodge of family tradition and nurture, social interaction, religion, magic, superstition and a host of other influences.

Although it is a strange, contradictory mixture at best, and this is a 'key' point, 'it seems to work for them.'

I find much more confusion represented by many who post here, in terms of how they deal with a 'personal philosophy'

Common people, 'common sense philosophy' must meet the demands of daily life, the trials and tribulations that average people face all the time, life death birth, tragedy, aspirations, inspirations, entertainment, pleasure, satisfaction, contentedness, a host of things that 'common place' philosophy of live must and does satisfy.

There is a bit of a contradiction involved in a 'true' study of philosophy....to withdraw and observe and study those who have addressed the subject before...requires a degree of alienation, setting oneself apart from the ebb and flow of life so as not to corrupt the study.

On the other hand, it is that immersion in life that provides the 'passion' and urge to seek answers, both personal/subjective and universal/objective...

If all that made any sense...

amicus

 

[haldir]

Amicus

It did sort of make sense.

However, its 00.30 here and I've been awake and working since 06.30 yesterday and I desperatley need to get to my bed.

More rigorous critique tomorrow I hope.

 

[amicus]

It does not concern me that members of this forum do not wish to recognize Ayn Rand as perhaps 'the' most influential philosopher of the 20th century.

It does not concern me that you ignore that her philosophy, Objectivsm is taught in every major University in the world, alongside classical philosophers from Thales forward.

It does not concern me that you ignore that 40 years after her death here works still sell 400,000 copies a year and that overall her work sells second only to the Bible and has occupied that position for many years.

I am not a 'follower' of her philosophy, nor do I recommend that any become such...however, to ignore her work because you disagree with her premises is not rational.

I do not apprecitate the work of Karl Marx, Kant or Hegel, but I can accept and admit that they were influential and remain so.

the following paste is for information only, those seeking more should search, 'The Ayn Rand Institute'



"Welcome to the Discover Ayn Rand project!

The aim of this project is to encourage the study and appreciation of Ayn Rand's ideas.

Ayn Rand is one of the "Big Seven" thinkers of the worldwide Celebrate Capitalism™ campaign.

Ayn Rand revolutionized practically everything she touched.

In Ethics she formulated the principle of "Rational Self-interest" and demonstrated the deadly nature of altruism.

In Epistemology (the branch of philosophy which deals with how do we know what we know) Ayn Rand solved the age old problem of how concepts are formed, how are they validated - and what is their connection to reality.

In Esthetics (Art) Ayn Rand defined the nature of Romanticism and why, for humans, art is not a luxury, but a vital need that derives from the volitional nature of human consciousness.

In Politics Ayn Rand showed how Capitalism is both moral and practical and how coercion and thinking are incompatible.

Ayn Rand's extraordinary intellect dealt with such matters as: The nature of volition (free will), use of the gold standard in economics, heroism in art, the legacy of Aristotle, what's wrong with altruism and collectivism.

And so much more!

Her discoveries, identifications, and conclusions are often astounding - and even today, often highly controversial! But the heart of Ayn Rand's unique genius was the way she approached things.

So, as you study Ayn Rand's ideas, be prepared to sweep away all traditions, dogmas, intellectual trends and fads. Be prepared to constructively question everything - not just the assumptions of others, but most important (and most difficult!) your own assumptions - and to leave no stone unturned in the quest for truth.

But the greatest challenge that Ayn Rand puts before us is the challenge of achieving personal happiness:


"Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity ... "


"...only moral purpose in your life..." as this thread began with a search for a 'moral philosophy' on might consider the above statement.

regards, amicus...

 

[shereads]

Sher, you are annoying me (here and elsewhere). I want only to be frank (vs. rude). I took time and serious thought to post, and received two thoughtful replies. You post silly non sequitors. I need no apology or excuse though (of mood or today's drug side effects); I just needed to express my reaction, utterly personal.

Perdita

If you are referring to my replies to cantdog, the chair reference was a silly non sequitor. The one about the dog enjoying her unexamined life was intended to be on topic, in an indirect and playful way that evidently distracted you from an otherwise fruitful discussion. I'm glad you don't need an apology and that I don't need an excuse.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Well, I can't believe I'm the only here who goes through life feeling my way more than thinking it. If I'm approached my someone panhandling, I rely on my feelings whether to give them a dollar or not, rather than checking my personal manifesto for my stand on charity vs. the sins of altruism.

At the bottom, I believe that most philosophy is just rationalized emotion anyhow. Even our certainty that 1+1 equals two is an emotional certainty. It's a feeling, and the most effective philosophies are the ones that change the way we feel, not the way we think. All systems of thought have to start with a set of unprovable axioms, and those axioms are always feelings.

And Perdita's right about that: all the thinking in the world doesn't equal one teaspoon of passion, which is pure feeling. When it comes down to it, we're all feeling our way along, and philosophy is what we say about it afterwards (after all the girls have gone home).

---dr.M.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Not to diss Ayn Rand, amicus, but I find it difficult to peg down the single most influential philosopher of an era. Was Rand influential, did she give birth to free-market capitalism and help social darwinism move into position? Yeah. But her effects seem to be limited to the powerful and rich. As far as well-selling. One of the biggest and most advertised college scholarships requires you to write a Rand love piece for the Foundation. I tried to participate, but I frankly I couldn't get into it and it wasn't interesting and pedantic enough to enjoy like a book of Leary or Crowley (really fucked up guys, both of them but fun to read). Anyways, the main point was that Rand while pervasive in universities and economics, hasn't really pervaded in literature and culture whereas nihilism and existensialism (much of which accredited to Sartre and slightly to Nietzche) have. So, if asked off the street, I would have labeled him as the most influential philosopher of the twentieth century. But perhaps that's one demon's opinion based on subjective notice on cultural influence.

 

[Pure]

amicus.
it just doesn't do to post encomia to a person by their admirers, Rand as pre eminent 20th century thinker, etc. Catholics may say that about the Pope, and the Moonies about Moon. Only _outside_ opinion matters in these 'best of the century' contests; philosophers discussed and appreciated by other philosophers and literary people, *including those who disagree with them, fundamentally.*

Rand would not be 'pervasive' in universities, and would not even be mentioned in many 20th century philos survey courses fo major universities. Post the official syllabi from Harvard, Princeton, Berkeley, U Mich. to prove your point.

her basic problem is lack of originality, in the areas touted in the brouchure: rational self interest was extensively explored before her, including in economists like Adam Smith; likewise the celebration of beneficent capitalism, the belief that an 'invisible hand' in the 'free market' (which never quite exists) would optimize distribution and increase wealth for all, is simply Smith, without the intelligence.

 

[Pure]

mab said,

It's a feeling, and the most effective philosophies are the ones that change the way we feel, not the way we think. All systems of thought have to start with a set of unprovable axioms, and those axioms are always feelings.

And Perdita's right about that: all the thinking in the world doesn't equal one teaspoon of passion, which is pure feeling. When it comes down to it, we're all feeling our way along, and philosophy is what we say about it afterwards (after all the girls have gone home).

There's a lot to what you say, and of course 'feeling' has been periodically celebrated esp. since the 19th century, in philsophy, literature, and art. Nietzche, and more recently Foucault have talked of a 'will to power' underlying human activity and interactions (cf Adler). This is to start philosophically outside the realm of cognition (thought).

That said, I find your paras split the two things; axioms are always feelings; 'we're feeling our way along' with philos., afterward. Feeling exist in a matrix of cognitions; and conversely.
You don't LOVE someone you believe has just murdered your kids.
As Nietzsche pointed out, the realization of 'death of god' gradually expands, and the feelings bubble up, passion, love of fate, and so on.

all the thinking in the world doesn't equal one teaspoon of passion, which is pure feeling

I see no reason to 'set off' the one against the other. There is not a passion you can mention--e.g., between the Brownings-- that did not shape thought, and react to the thoughts of the other. Pure (unadulterated) 'soul communion' is not very common; the *letters of Abelard record and shape the situation with Eloise.

IOW, I make a plea for melding, as in attitudes and sentiments. The terms, 'thoughts' and 'feelings' themselves suggest that one floats around without the other.

 

[Guest]

Jeezus, Pure, that was well said. - Perdita

 

[shereads]

Well, I can't believe I'm the only here who goes through life feeling my way more than thinking it.

Probably not, but you are one of the few here who will admit it.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

mab said,


I see no reason to 'set off' the one against the other. There is not a passion you can mention--e.g., between the Brownings-- that did not shape thought, and react to the thoughts of the other. Pure (unadulterated) 'soul communion' is not very common; the *letters of Abelard record and shape the situation with Eloise.

That's what I meant: that feelings shape thought far more than thought shapes feeling. Maybe I should substitute the word "reason" for thought, because what I'm talking about is the kind of rational, systematic thought philosophers like to deal with.

So I mean like you can present a logical argument for why love is better than hate, but you can probably argue just as convincingly that hate is as good as love. Reason is like that, and it's only as good as its axioms, which are not provable, and as far as the limits of language allow. In any case, rational arguments based on reason are never going to be as effective in determining behavior as what people feel. We feel that love is better than hate, and then we make up the rational arguments afterwards to support our feelings.

When people talk about how we give too much weight to rationality, that's what they're talking about. We all know without even thinking about it that there's such a thing as emotional logic which has its own rules and which often don't make logical sense. It's emotional logic that we deal with in stories and in art. Without emotional logic, reason is freakish and inhuman (and the subject of countless bad sci-fi movies).

Without getting too far afield, I think that's what the Platonists were all about. They really got off on finding those places where the world of rationality and abstract thought impacted the inner world of emotions and esthetics. The Pythagorean theorem, the golden section, and Euclid's elegant proofs were all very rational and yet deeply emotionally satisfying as well. So satisfying that in them the Platonists thought they glimpsed divinity/

---dr.M.

 

[shereads]

That's what I meant: that feelings shape thought far more than thought shapes feeling. Maybe I should substitute the word "reason" for thought, because what I'm talking about is the kind of rational, systematic thought philosophers like to deal with.

So I mean like you can present a logical argument for why love is better than hate, but you can probably argue just as convincingly that hate is as good as love.

Before you argue that either thing is better than the other, woudn't you need to define the ideal?

If the goal is inner-directed (the personal pursuit of inner peace/nirvana/wealth/more cable channels) - you might argue that neither love nor hate is helpful, and that both are useless distractions.

If the goal is to be of benefit to the community, the ideal might be a tightly knit group whose strength is derived from their attachment to each other, in which case love of the group benefits everyone but love of outsiders brings the threat of jealousy and disorder in the ranks.

Let me back up a few miles, and ask a question. Or two.

This is a topic that interests me, but that I find too enormous and intimidating to know where to begin any serious reading on the subject. It didn't come up much in school, or I napped through it.

Here's a summary of what I think I know about philosophy. I'd like to know how far off I am, and where to begin reading.

1) I gather that the Zen ideal, to put it as simply as I'm able to understand it, is to achieve a state of perfect peace by relinguishing the desire to have or keep anything, including a concept of self. True?

I know I'm clumping Eastern religions/philosophies into one big clump, but it seems generally true of Eastern thought that love/hate and other things that are in opposition to each other are of equal merit because they balance the universe. True? Or am I misreading all of those images of Hindu gods who are worthy of admiration even though (or because) they devour us?

2) Eastern vs. Western philosophical thought: is there such a distinction? I have the impression that Eastern thought is based on acceptance/inclusiveness/universal one-ness, whereas Western thought seems more focused on the individual and his place in the scheme of things. How far off am I? Lots? Or lots and lots?

3) CANTDOG/Anyone: When you speak of the Observer, do you mean the sense of self as someone (conscious being) who is watching/controlling/experiencing your life in your body?

What you said made me think of Spaulding Gray, and something I read about why he focused on death so much in his work - That it wasn't a desire to be dead, but a suspicion that he would never fully experience the richness of being alive until he was faced with the end of life. He was explaining why he had become addicted to skiing: "The moment you think, 'Hey, look, I'm skiing,' that's when you fall."

He seemed to be saying that he felt detached from life, an observer; and that experiences can't be felt intensely if one is observing them. I think a lot of his fans identified with that in his work. Some of us feel the same way about sex, or chocolate, or really good flan: They are experiences that appeal because we've been able to feel them so intensely that we are no longer "observers" of our lives; in those moments, we experience a one-ness of mind and body.

Okay. Those are my questions. I'll check back for your answers later and you can send your invoices to my PM box.

I have to observe myself working now.

 

[Pure]

Some comments, just my two cents.

1) I gather that the Zen ideal, to put it as simply as I'm able to understand it, is to achieve a state of perfect peace by relinguishing the desire to have or keep anything, including a concept of self. True?

That sounds close to Buddhism, in its call to let go all cravings.
Zen itself, however, would not talk about 'achieving' anything, since there is nothing to achieve. The nothingness at our core doesn't need to reliquish anything or achieve anything or go anywhere. It's there already. (See the Diamond Sutra; Hui Neng Sutra). You don't have self--means[meditation]--perfect peace, since these distinctions are nonsensical.


I know I'm clumping Eastern religions/philosophies into one big clump, but it seems generally true of Eastern thought that love/hate and other things that are in opposition to each other are of equal merit because they balance the universe. True? Or am I misreading all of those images of Hindu gods who are worthy of admiration even though (or because) they devour us?

There's no clump, but certainly Taoism speaks of opposite and complementary forces, honoring both. I see it less in Confucianism. Hindus, insofar as they honor gods of destruction (Kali?) or death are, i suppose, affirming both ends of certain oppositions.


2) Eastern vs. Western philosophical thought: is there such a distinction? I have the impression that Eastern thought is based on the acceptance/inclusiveness/universal one-ness, whereas Western thought seems more focused on the individual and his place in the scheme of things. How far off am I? Lots? Or lots and lots?

I don't like all the lumping together. There are overlaps, e.g, skeptical philosophies in Greece and India (we can't know anything about anything).

Several famous Western systems have emphasis on acceptance/discovery of the One, eg. Platonism and Neo Platonism. Plus Western religious mystics like Eckhart.

I suppose as a political philosophy, 'individualism', ie. individual atoms, striving to maximize self interest, and perhaps bringing about a social good (from Hobbes to Adam Smith), is a Western idea. But 'family' models of the state, are found in the West and East; all one family, headed by (you guessed it) Dad; looking after the 'kids' bound by filial duties; all fulfilling distinct roles. Western fascist, and Eastern Confucian systems.

I think a separation of philosophy from religion is more a Western thing, over the last 500 years. Indeed, I think 'religion' is a Western concept, insofar as it's particular sets of beliefs and practices. Iow, for the Islamic, Taoism, Confucian folks there is no separation of religion from 'way of life.'

Not sure if any of this makes sense, but off the top of my head....

PS, personally I think studies are best guided by small questions, like, What did Plato think about God? than big ones like "Is Western Philosophy essentially individualist?" Until one reaches 60 or so.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

What did Plato think about God?

Nothing. Plato was a Hellenic. And he wasn't even very strong in that.

That's the problem with little questions, the answers just don't resonate with the hubris and self-importance that the answers to the big questions have.

 

[rgraham666]

How interesting. I just tried reading the Diamond Sutra today.

I stopped after the first few pages when it started going on about perfection and loss of self, exactly the wrong things to go on about around me.

My sense of self has often been the only thing that mattered to me. Asking me to give it up is asking too much.

And perfection? Phaugh! Perfection is an ideal that no mere human can achieve. And then it would destroy them as any change would, as far as I'm concerned, make them less that perfect. So the only way to stay perfect is to be frozen in space and time, unchanging. Who wants to be a lawn statuary? Forever?

Plus, people who expect perfection are usually very unhappy, quite mad or both.

 

[amicus]

An interesting 'two cents worth,' Pure...nicely said...

A couple of authors came to mind, Hermann Hesse, for one, Siddhartha, Damien, Magister Ludi..some of his works..and, Nevil Shute (Norway) one of his novels dealt with Eastern Religious thought in a fictional way that was absolutely fascinating. It has been many years since I read either author, but for pleasure, if for nothing else, I highly recommend them.

If I had all the answers, or even a lot of the answers, I surely would not be beating my head against the prevailing thought of this forum.

I offer only this 'postulation' and it applies to the apparent conflict between 'Eastern/Western' philosophy and 'male/female' dichotomy.

Again, just speculation...it seems to me, that many have an inherent distaste, and a reluctance to admit that 'man' is basically an 'animal'.

It seems they prefer to think that 'man' is somehow 'divine', more than the sum of the total.

Whether in the Eastern style of 'reincarnation' 'ancestor worship' Nirvana, et cetera, or, the Western tradition of an omnimpotent Supreme Being, from which all good and evil flows.

A corruption of both, is the sacrifice of the individual, 'to the greater good' has plagued man since the time of Plato and should have culminated with the practical experience of National Socialism as advocated by Hegel, Kant, Nietszche and others.

I surmise, that even for those with the intellectual ability, that the fearsome step of accepting than man is but, 'the rational animal' is frought with the fear ot total alienation from immortality. Hence the advent of Kierkegard, Sartre, Camus and others who revelled in the nihilistic detachment of the individual soul.

As you said, 'lumping a lot of things together', generalizing, opens one to criticism and it will surely follow. However...

If indeed we are the product only of evolution, natural selection, origin of species, et al, then it should benefit us to pursue knowledge about the basic natural characteristics of that 'critter', which has been somewhat my lifelong quest.

Thanks for a thought provoking post.

regards, amicus...

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

An interesting 'two cents worth,' Pure...nicely said...

A couple of authors came to mind, Hermann Hesse, for one, Siddhartha, Damien, Magister Ludi..some of his works..and, Nevil Shute (Norway) one of his novels dealt with Eastern Religious thought in a fictional way that was absolutely fascinating. It has been many years since I read either author, but for pleasure, if for nothing else, I highly recommend them.

If I had all the answers, or even a lot of the answers, I surely would not be beating my head against the prevailing thought of this forum.

I offer only this 'postulation' and it applies to the apparent conflict between 'Eastern/Western' philosophy and 'male/female' dichotomy.

Again, just speculation...it seems to me, that many have an inherent distaste, and a reluctance to admit that 'man' is basically an 'animal'.

It seems they prefer to think that 'man' is somehow 'divine', more than the sum of the total.

Whether in the Eastern style of 'reincarnation' 'ancestor worship' Nirvana, et cetera, or, the Western tradition of an omnimpotent Supreme Being, from which all good and evil flows.

A corruption of both, is the sacrifice of the individual, 'to the greater good' has plagued man since the time of Plato and should have culminated with the practical experience of National Socialism as advocated by Hegel, Kant, Nietszche and others.

I surmise, that even for those with the intellectual ability, that the fearsome step of accepting than man is but, 'the rational animal' is frought with the fear ot total alienation from immortality. Hence the advent of Kierkegard, Sartre, Camus and others who revelled in the nihilistic detachment of the individual soul.

As you said, 'lumping a lot of things together', generalizing, opens one to criticism and it will surely follow. However...

If indeed we are the product only of evolution, natural selection, origin of species, et al, then it should benefit us to pursue knowledge about the basic natural characteristics of that 'critter', which has been somewhat my lifelong quest.

Thanks for a thought provoking post.

regards, amicus...

You need to read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. It's the one of the few books that explores man as a rational animal.

 

[amicus]

Lucifer...hope your tongue was not injured by forceful assault on cheek...


Literotica Discussion, Selfish Gene

http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Books/selfish.shtml


Thanks for the heads up, Lucifer…found a site with a chapter synopsis but it stopped at Ch. 11…will look in local library…although this book seems to confirm my thoughts, I did not read enough as yet to discover the authors ‘theme’ if he has one. Reviews of the work say he did not…however…



Chapter 5…the ‘doves’ analogy I find contradictory as a non competitive, non aggressive group would not weed out the weak…

Chapter 7…”over population, welfare state is benevolent…” Dawkins errs again, in the Malthusian manner as we have seen in the past one hundred years, and will see over the next one thousand. The movement toward ‘same sex’ marriage is also a population limiting factor…

Chapter 10…curious statement about coy females, animal/human…cute…

Again, thank you for the reference….

Amicus…

(Your sarcastic and not so subtle 'rational animal' pun mostly likely will be understood by no one else, but, I got it.)

Geez...Luc...lighten up...

 

[Pure]

hi amicus,

you said in part,

the practical experience of National Socialism as advocated by Hegel, Kant, Nietszche and others.

Hegel possibly, but usually described as constitutional monarchist

Kant, no.

Nietzcshe was against the fascists and anti semites of his day, e.g., R Wagner (after a brief period of fascination).
----

You have to look at original texts, not the summaries of Rand and others.


many [East and West] have an inherent distaste, and a reluctance to admit that 'man' is basically an 'animal'.

There is something to this point. But the 'animal' view goes back to the Greeks, at least.

In the West, the 'animal' or 'atheist' conclusion dawns on people, first, from say 1775-1875. One of the first 'out' atheists was de Sade; later, Nietzsche. Both mentioned the 'moral' implications of atheism, i.e., we're not going to be judged by the 10 C; that we're essentially animals. Sade discussed whether murder was immoral (since animals like owls, kill), and N admired the results of Caesar's conquests (in nature, the stronger overcomes the weaker... unless they get together).

Freud was an 'out' atheist, and espouser of the 'animal' view.

Oddly, Rand has no appreciation of atheists before and during her, nor any appreciation for critiques of religion before and during her. E.g., critiques of religion by Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud.

Interestingly, Sade is one of the first to oppose capital punishment, and in his day and ours, those favoring it tend to be religious, and often strongly so.

If you read Rand, you find her especially denouncing those whose views were closest to hers, more deeply thought out, and better argued. Odd result of her ignorance.

 

[amicus]

Pure, okay..so you do not appreciate Ayn Rand, I can live with that.

Your implication that I read the 'summaries' and not the original is for the most part fabrication and secondly, most of the aforementioned writers are so intellectually obtuse as to be nearly unreadable and uncomprehendable unless you buy into their basic assumptions.

And while some I mentioned may or may not advocate a particular political philosophy, basic assumptions and statements in there works were used as the philosophical unpinnings of Marxists and National Socialists.

There is also the 18th and 19th centuries context to consider when one cogitates on the progress and evolution of perceived political systems.

An 'Utopian' desire has been a portion of intellectual pursuit from before the concept of 'The Garden of Eden' and 'Nirvana', it is perhaps a myth that is shared by any society that achieves the luxury of scholars/priests who think about such things.

Perhaps in my 'winter' years, I disdain the studies of youth and the dependence upon 'quoted and referenced' material from those who have gone before. I am pleased to be at a time in my life when I can consider what I have learned, or think I have learned, and express it without depending on the words and thoughts of others.

Be that as it may, one can discern, through history, a direction, in general, that expresses more individual choice and less tyrannical direction.

Amicus...

 

[shereads]

I think a separation of philosophy from religion is more a Western thing, over the last 500 years. Indeed, I think 'religion' is a Western concept, insofar as it's particular sets of beliefs and practices. Iow, for the Islamic, Taoism, Confucian folks there is no separation of religion from 'way of life.'

Not sure if any of this makes sense, but off the top of my head....

Not bad. Thank you, Pure. Particularly for the comment about separation of philosophy from religion. So do the major philosophers tend to reuinite us westerners with the sciences that our religions take away?

You want small questions, I've got small questions.

 

[shereads]

Nothing. Plato was a Hellenic. And he wasn't even very strong in that.

That's the problem with little questions, the answers just don't resonate with the hubris and self-importance that the answers to the big questions have.

That's okay. Luc. I received the best state education a slacker could wish for*, and I don't know from Hellenists. Got to start somewhere...But you're right, resonance is good...Does anyone else think Hubris would be a great name for a dog? It should be a droopy dog, one of the hound breeds.

*I've read The Tao of Pooh; I'm not completely ignorant. I also know there's an awful lot of hitting on the head with sticks in Zen teaching.

 

[shereads]

So the only way to stay perfect is to be frozen in space and time, unchanging. Who wants to be a lawn statuary? Forever?

Oh! Oh! Oh! Call on me!

< a thought pops up at the back of the classroom and holds up its hand, gesturing excitedly and unable to wait for its turn >

RG, please please please read a book called "Einstein's Dreams." I have to know what you think of it. Because of what you just said. Okay? Okay! Thank you. Back to the thread now.

 

[shereads]

In the West, the 'animal' or 'atheist' conclusion dawns on people, first, from say 1775-1875. One of the first 'out' atheists was de Sade; later, Nietzsche. Both mentioned the 'moral' implications of atheism, i.e., we're not going to be judged by the 10 C; that we're essentially animals. Sade discussed whether murder was immoral (since animals like owls, kill), and N admired the results of Caesar's conquests (in nature, the stronger overcomes the weaker... unless they get together).

Freud was an 'out' atheist, and espouser of the 'animal' view.

But why does the acceptance of man as an evolved animal have to hinge on an atheistic view? I've never understood why there should be any inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and the idea of a creator/creative force behind the existence of sentient life. You don't promote the existence of carpenters by pretending that a chair was always a chair, so why make the existence of God hinge on whether or not we were created out of clay and ribs?